6 ms·

You've lost me.

by 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
        Either you haven't read the comment like I asked, or you're wilfully ignoring me. Again, I don't want to change your risk-tolerance. Do you understand what that means?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        I understand perfectly what it means. You're continuing to try to paint any objection as an unfounded fear of an extremely rare event given the assumption that there is no mismanagement or corruption or lying, and to paint any scepticism about non-existent gen IV reactors as unfounded fear of them failing in the exact same ways. Without specifying which non-existent design you are vaguely gesturing at, the objection cannot be made more concrete. One concern will be 'addressed' with a half lie about one technology, which then isn't allowed to come up when talking about a completely different technology where the half lie doesn't apply. Gen III+ reactors have many many failure modes that 'can't happen' but require assumptiona and defense in depth princies that are regularly violated. MOX is a complete lie, especially with regard to Pu240 and Pu241 or meaningfully solving fuel shortages. There is nowhere near enough fuel for large scale expansion of them. Molten salt reactors skate on the edge of prompt criticality and there's no process for cleaning the salt. They also leak constantly. Sodium cooled Uranium breeders operate on the certainty of emitting more fission products into the ocean (or the Techa river) than fukushima did during reprocessing. Primary coolant leaks are also on fire in addition to being radioactive. They also catch fire constantly and skate on the edge of prompt criticality if used in breeding mode. Neither has a strategy for dealing with the primary coolant after a plant is done or shuts early other than making the public pay to look after it for 50 years then putting it in a hole. Neither actually helps reduce Pu240 or Pu241 meaningfully. Neither can breed enough fuel to maintin a significant fleet of burner reactors. HTGRs have yet to manifest and either no-one outside of the boys club will be allowed to make fuel for them or they will produce an order of magnitude more waste. The claims about having '3x' the fuel efficiency are based on 6x as much U235, so they actually run out of fuel twice as fast. The lies about the rest of the fuel cycle are too numerous to summarize.

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
        Either you haven't read the comment like I asked, or you're wilfully ignoring me. Again, I don't want to change your risk-tolerance. Do you understand what that means?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        I understand perfectly what it means. You're continuing to try to paint any objection as an unfounded fear of an extremely rare event given the assumption that there is no mismanagement or corruption or lying, and to paint any scepticism about non-existent gen IV reactors as unfounded fear of them failing in the exact same ways. Without specifying which non-existent design you are vaguely gesturing at, the objection cannot be made more concrete. One concern will be 'addressed' with a half lie about one technology, which then isn't allowed to come up when talking about a completely different technology where the half lie doesn't apply. Gen III+ reactors have many many failure modes that 'can't happen' but require assumptiona and defense in depth princies that are regularly violated. MOX is a complete lie, especially with regard to Pu240 and Pu241 or meaningfully solving fuel shortages. There is nowhere near enough fuel for large scale expansion of them. Molten salt reactors skate on the edge of prompt criticality and there's no process for cleaning the salt. They also leak constantly. Sodium cooled Uranium breeders operate on the certainty of emitting more fission products into the ocean (or the Techa river) than fukushima did during reprocessing. Primary coolant leaks are also on fire in addition to being radioactive. They also catch fire constantly and skate on the edge of prompt criticality if used in breeding mode. Neither has a strategy for dealing with the primary coolant after a plant is done or shuts early other than making the public pay to look after it for 50 years then putting it in a hole. Neither actually helps reduce Pu240 or Pu241 meaningfully. Neither can breed enough fuel to maintin a significant fleet of burner reactors. HTGRs have yet to manifest and either no-one outside of the boys club will be allowed to make fuel for them or they will produce an order of magnitude more waste. The claims about having '3x' the fuel efficiency are based on 6x as much U235, so they actually run out of fuel twice as fast. The lies about the rest of the fuel cycle are too numerous to summarize.