7 ms·

You're right in principle, but I disagree on the particulars. Not to attempt to convince you, just to explain my rationale: we have proven it works. It is carbo

You're right in principle, but I disagree on the particulars. Not to attempt to convince you, just to explain my rationale: we have proven it works. It is carbon zero (ish). It slots into the grid. The fuel source is not a problem. The byproducts are containable. It can serve as baseload for distributed solar and I guess wind (though wind is a capital disaster for other reasons). And nuclear waste is ugly for 500 years, but can serve other uses in that time, and is not large, in that it could be geographically localized. There are risks to all technology transitions, but the logistics of nuclear seem as easy as or easier than the logistics of massive solar and battery storage. And neither have the potentially catastrophic side effects of climate change so it's a necessity to choose one, the other, or a mix of both. Just let fission play.

pfdietz 3y ago
I can stipulate all your claims there and still argue that it doesn't make sense to build more nuclear power plants. You have not made the case for that.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  > Not to attempt to convince you, just to explain my rationale
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Just pointing out that your rationale is not something that should have convinced even you. So ask yourself: if you cannot construct an argument that can convince someone else of your position, did you really arrive at that position by rational means?
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      You're arguing from a non-foundation, just a quip against my comments, but I wish to politely decline further discussion. My point in commenting was to point out that the comment further up the chain was ... quite against the evidence at hand. > That there exist countries with lots of fission does not mean there's a place for construction of new fission power plants. Existing capital can continue to be operated long after it no longer makes sense to replace it, due to sunk costs. I guess this is an assumption that they have outlived their usefulness and soldier on like zombies? There's no evidence given there, so it doesn't matter. If you are in fact a policy maker giving me the exclusive chance to redirect funding and regulations to support nuclear energy as outlined in this article, then please let me know and I'll compile a survey and fully justify my opinion. Cheers

pfdietz 3y ago

I can stipulate all your claims there and still argue that it doesn't make sense to build more nuclear power plants. You have not made the case for that.

jvanderbot 3y ago
> Not to attempt to convince you, just to explain my rationale
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Just pointing out that your rationale is not something that should have convinced even you. So ask yourself: if you cannot construct an argument that can convince someone else of your position, did you really arrive at that position by rational means?
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    You're arguing from a non-foundation, just a quip against my comments, but I wish to politely decline further discussion. My point in commenting was to point out that the comment further up the chain was ... quite against the evidence at hand. > That there exist countries with lots of fission does not mean there's a place for construction of new fission power plants. Existing capital can continue to be operated long after it no longer makes sense to replace it, due to sunk costs. I guess this is an assumption that they have outlived their usefulness and soldier on like zombies? There's no evidence given there, so it doesn't matter. If you are in fact a policy maker giving me the exclusive chance to redirect funding and regulations to support nuclear energy as outlined in this article, then please let me know and I'll compile a survey and fully justify my opinion. Cheers