16 ms·

The alternative is we ignore the entire cesspit and acknowledge that accepting 2-5% of energy being provided by fossil fuels in a small minority of countries un

The alternative is we ignore the entire cesspit and acknowledge that accepting 2-5% of energy being provided by fossil fuels in a small minority of countries until storage matures is better than putting everything on hold and hoping that gifting a few trillion dollars to people who have done nothing but scam will work better.

marmetio 4y ago
You've lost me.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  There's a much better solution than sitting and pretending nuclear is going to save the day. Let's use that.
  - marmetio 4y ago
    Is this another tactic to reject nuclear, or are you just wandering off-topic?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You're pretending the option is fossil fuels or nuclear like every other concern troll. Never has been because nuclear is incapable of solving the problem.
      - marmetio 4y ago
        You're illustrating the problem I described originally. When it's time to discus nuclear, people like you can't do it. You deflected by changing the subject to comparing different energy sources.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Refusing to acknowledge your attempt to force the conversation into a very narrow framing where the true source of risk and harm is ignored isn't deflecting. And your last point is incredibly disingenuous. Having a nuclear reactor isn't an end, having energy is. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of alternatives and that they beat your proposal on its supposed merits is the inabity to have a discussion. This is an incredibly transparent attempt to frame a conversation in such a way that the only possible avenue of discussion is how long we have to sit on our thumbs and wait for a gen IV nuclear reactor to materialise whilst ignoring the absolute failure of any previous designs to deliver on their promise of cheap, clean, abundant, or safe power. Your gaslighting is not as subtle as you think it is. Refusing to believe nuclear advocates isn't 'panic' or irrational when the lies have been so consistent for wellover three generations that assuming the opposite of what you say is a much better strategy for coming to correct conclusions than believing you.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        marmetio 4y ago
        In your mind, I'm trying to convince you to accept a risk that's unacceptable to you. But I'm not. I don't want to change your risk-tolerance. It's very laborious explaining that to vehemently anti-nuclear people. Please read my other comment in this thread, because I'm not going to repeat myself. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34248266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34248266
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        No. You're trying to shift the focus away from reality and on to an imaginary world where an industry that has consistently lied and done the worst thing they can get away with will do the right thing if we stop holding them to account. And where the very real externalities at mines and fabrication plants and enrichment plants and reprocessing plants that have been accumulating since the 50s are not allowed to be spoken about. And where there will never be an actually bad accident in spite of the yearly near misses and frequent events that 'can never happen'. And where the promises of reactors that exist on paper will come true despite that being the opposite of what happened every single other time. And you're positioning dealing with this as necessary due to an imagined need that can't be better solved with alternatives. And instead of acknowledging the industry's unbroken history of gaslighting and lies you are positioning anything other than credulous paying of the scammers to continue doing nothing other than grift as an unfounded panic.

marmetio 4y ago

You've lost me.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
There's a much better solution than sitting and pretending nuclear is going to save the day. Let's use that.
- marmetio 4y ago
  Is this another tactic to reject nuclear, or are you just wandering off-topic?
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You're pretending the option is fossil fuels or nuclear like every other concern troll. Never has been because nuclear is incapable of solving the problem.
    - marmetio 4y ago
      You're illustrating the problem I described originally. When it's time to discus nuclear, people like you can't do it. You deflected by changing the subject to comparing different energy sources.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Refusing to acknowledge your attempt to force the conversation into a very narrow framing where the true source of risk and harm is ignored isn't deflecting. And your last point is incredibly disingenuous. Having a nuclear reactor isn't an end, having energy is. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of alternatives and that they beat your proposal on its supposed merits is the inabity to have a discussion. This is an incredibly transparent attempt to frame a conversation in such a way that the only possible avenue of discussion is how long we have to sit on our thumbs and wait for a gen IV nuclear reactor to materialise whilst ignoring the absolute failure of any previous designs to deliver on their promise of cheap, clean, abundant, or safe power. Your gaslighting is not as subtle as you think it is. Refusing to believe nuclear advocates isn't 'panic' or irrational when the lies have been so consistent for wellover three generations that assuming the opposite of what you say is a much better strategy for coming to correct conclusions than believing you.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        marmetio 4y ago
        In your mind, I'm trying to convince you to accept a risk that's unacceptable to you. But I'm not. I don't want to change your risk-tolerance. It's very laborious explaining that to vehemently anti-nuclear people. Please read my other comment in this thread, because I'm not going to repeat myself. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34248266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34248266
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        No. You're trying to shift the focus away from reality and on to an imaginary world where an industry that has consistently lied and done the worst thing they can get away with will do the right thing if we stop holding them to account. And where the very real externalities at mines and fabrication plants and enrichment plants and reprocessing plants that have been accumulating since the 50s are not allowed to be spoken about. And where there will never be an actually bad accident in spite of the yearly near misses and frequent events that 'can never happen'. And where the promises of reactors that exist on paper will come true despite that being the opposite of what happened every single other time. And you're positioning dealing with this as necessary due to an imagined need that can't be better solved with alternatives. And instead of acknowledging the industry's unbroken history of gaslighting and lies you are positioning anything other than credulous paying of the scammers to continue doing nothing other than grift as an unfounded panic.