3 ms·

I'm not working in solar and wind. Some of my colleagues are writing reports that recommend more nuclear in some cases, and less nuclear in other cases (I say "

by cauch 3y ago

I'm not working in solar and wind. Some of my colleagues are writing reports that recommend more nuclear in some cases, and less nuclear in other cases (I say "some of my colleagues" because I'm not personally working on generation, even if I sometimes peer-review their work). It is very telling that your first thoughts was "if someone says that in the sector, it's not what they say, then, surely this person is wrong somehow". It shows the level of bias. As for Jancovici, I find him very disappointing on solar. In one hand, he says very interesting things on economics and history. On the other hand, my colleagues and I are just looking each other with total surprise when he talk about solar: it looks like he never worked on the subject (but he did). In fact, few decades ago, he was saying that solar has no future, with predictions that are factually BS, proven by the fact that what he predicted never happened (and not because of a fluke, just because it was unrealistic). It feels like he chose a side and got emotionally invested in it, and now he just denies the reality. He may have been confronted to intellectually dishonest people, and now each time there is just neutral facts, he may be systematically concluding that it is impossible for it to not be something from intellectually dishonest people. It's a bit sad, I'm not sure if he is doing more good than bad: he is informing people on some aspect, but he is also spreading a lot of harmful stereotype (for example, in some places, solar is really an essential element for decarbonisation, there is just no other way that is not mathematically absurd, but these conclusions are labelled "ideological" by people having done zero study, "because Jancovici said that only ideological people promotes solar"). Just to be clear: my colleagues and I are paid the same (or even more if we have to be paid again for another study when they choose a bad option), but I just feel it's not good for society that there is so little rationality.

palata 3y ago
> It is very telling that your first thoughts was "if someone says that in the sector, it's not what they say, then, surely this person is wrong somehow". It shows the level of bias. I said that I would expect someone working in the sector to believe in the sector. I did not say AT ALL that someone working in the sector is surely wrong. Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. That's how it works. Asking who is saying what and consider they may have a bias seems reasonable to me. > "because Jancovici said that only ideological people promotes solar" I have been following him for years, and that is not AT ALL what I understood. He never says "solar is completely useless". He says "it depends on the situation, but it won't scale to replace fossil fuels". He also says that in many situations nuclear is a better fit (because if you have enough nuclear energy, then you don't need renewables, but when you have renewables, you need a solution for the times where they don't produce enough). I am absolutely certain that renewables are good in many situations. I just say that people selling solar farms have an interest in believing that solar farms will replace fossil fuels. But they won't.
- cauch 3y ago
  > I said that I would expect someone working in the sector to believe in the sector. I did not say AT ALL that someone working in the sector is surely wrong. No, you said that you expect someone saying that solar and wind is not that bad to be working IN SOLAR AND WIND and not in nuclear. You said that my view on solar and wind is biased because I work on solar and wind. I don't, I work on the full energy sector, I don't prefer renewables to nuclear. > Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. That's how it works. Asking who is saying what and consider they may have a bias seems reasonable to me. That's exactly my point: you ASSUMED that if I say renewable is good, then I HAVE TO be in renewable. Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain. But you did not, it was just obvious in your mind: if I'm saying the renewables are not bad, then there is no way I'm intellectually honest and unbiased. > I have been following him for years, and that is not AT ALL what I understood. I have worked on projects where we saw DIRECT AFFIRMATIONS from Jancovici that were, for real, just BS. Not because we were interpreting them badly or something like that, it was very clear cut, such as "we've just done the math for your exact project and we guarantee you you will not get it for less than X euros" and few months later, we got it for 0.001 X euros. You may understand superficially what Jancovici says. But obviously, I've seen, from first hand, the reality, and it will be very difficult for you to convince me that what I've experienced was a dream. Each time he is saying "nuclear is a better fit", you need to be very prudent, he is always comparing the very very worst case scenario for renewables with the unrealistically ideal case for nuclear. > (because if you have enough nuclear energy, then you don't need renewables, but when you have renewables, you need a solution for the times where they don't produce enough) That only is stupid. You cannot place "just nuclear", the way they work is just not suited for flexible grid, which is essential if we want to reduce emissions. You can somehow follow the demand, but you will spend order of magnitude more money than if you use renewables for exactly the same result, and you will never reach the needed reduction in time. You were saying that you reacted to "silver bullet, if you have enough renewables then you don't need nuclear". And there, you are doing exactly the same thing by saying that "if you have enough nuclear, then you don't need renewables". Let be clear: I know you prefer a mixed solution. The problem is that you believe that if you have enough nuclear, then you don't need renewables, which is just not correct.

by cauch 3y ago

palata 3y ago

> It is very telling that your first thoughts was "if someone says that in the sector, it's not what they say, then, surely this person is wrong somehow". It shows the level of bias. I said that I would expect someone working in the sector to believe in the sector. I did not say AT ALL that someone working in the sector is surely wrong. Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. That's how it works. Asking who is saying what and consider they may have a bias seems reasonable to me. > "because Jancovici said that only ideological people promotes solar" I have been following him for years, and that is not AT ALL what I understood. He never says "solar is completely useless". He says "it depends on the situation, but it won't scale to replace fossil fuels". He also says that in many situations nuclear is a better fit (because if you have enough nuclear energy, then you don't need renewables, but when you have renewables, you need a solution for the times where they don't produce enough). I am absolutely certain that renewables are good in many situations. I just say that people selling solar farms have an interest in believing that solar farms will replace fossil fuels. But they won't.

cauch 3y ago
> I said that I would expect someone working in the sector to believe in the sector. I did not say AT ALL that someone working in the sector is surely wrong. No, you said that you expect someone saying that solar and wind is not that bad to be working IN SOLAR AND WIND and not in nuclear. You said that my view on solar and wind is biased because I work on solar and wind. I don't, I work on the full energy sector, I don't prefer renewables to nuclear. > Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. That's how it works. Asking who is saying what and consider they may have a bias seems reasonable to me. That's exactly my point: you ASSUMED that if I say renewable is good, then I HAVE TO be in renewable. Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain. But you did not, it was just obvious in your mind: if I'm saying the renewables are not bad, then there is no way I'm intellectually honest and unbiased. > I have been following him for years, and that is not AT ALL what I understood. I have worked on projects where we saw DIRECT AFFIRMATIONS from Jancovici that were, for real, just BS. Not because we were interpreting them badly or something like that, it was very clear cut, such as "we've just done the math for your exact project and we guarantee you you will not get it for less than X euros" and few months later, we got it for 0.001 X euros. You may understand superficially what Jancovici says. But obviously, I've seen, from first hand, the reality, and it will be very difficult for you to convince me that what I've experienced was a dream. Each time he is saying "nuclear is a better fit", you need to be very prudent, he is always comparing the very very worst case scenario for renewables with the unrealistically ideal case for nuclear. > (because if you have enough nuclear energy, then you don't need renewables, but when you have renewables, you need a solution for the times where they don't produce enough) That only is stupid. You cannot place "just nuclear", the way they work is just not suited for flexible grid, which is essential if we want to reduce emissions. You can somehow follow the demand, but you will spend order of magnitude more money than if you use renewables for exactly the same result, and you will never reach the needed reduction in time. You were saying that you reacted to "silver bullet, if you have enough renewables then you don't need nuclear". And there, you are doing exactly the same thing by saying that "if you have enough nuclear, then you don't need renewables". Let be clear: I know you prefer a mixed solution. The problem is that you believe that if you have enough nuclear, then you don't need renewables, which is just not correct.