4 ms·

Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect (even if sometimes they are a bit bullshit, like the German sabotage where the repor

by cauch 2y ago

Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect (even if sometimes they are a bit bullshit, like the German sabotage where the report is not able to give anything concrete, just that French people who think nuclear is not a good idea are unsurprisingly friends with people who think nuclear is not a good idea in other countries, and that political groups that think they have understood the situation well will fund reports, like it happens all the time including with pro-nuclear reports). My problem with your intervention is that your claims are not representative of the situation. You criticize the sentence "France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011", which is sourced and is true (even when accounting projection for 2024), by bringing several correct elements. But you are doing the same error as the sentence you criticize: you bring cherry-picked arguments. The point I've brought up is that your view of the situation is not the same as the view of the situation in the sector, that your view is just ... caricatural. For example, how would like react if someone says that the failure of the Energiewende is due to France funding pro-nuclear in Germany and sabotaging the program? I would personally say that it is biased: even if we entertain the idea for the sake of argument, in itself it's way not enough to make the Energiewende fails. For the French situation, typical reasons given for recent difficulties with the nuclear park are: the mess the government made with EDF privatization, the loss of technical expertise, the short-term vision where the electricity was sold too cheap and did not create budget for infrastructure maintenance/renewal, the fact that now we are going toward a flexible grid (something that was not expected even 50 years ago) and that the initial strategy was not accounting for that at all, the fact that the public/politic opinion is stupidly about "nuclear vs renewable" instead of using the best in specific situations, the learning in the nuclear sector that things are intrinsically complicated which burst the investment enthusiasm, ... You will notice that these reasons are not "anti-nuclear": some of them implies that the French situation is not due intrinsically to nuclear, but due to the specific French situation. The problem is that you don't mention any of them. You just mention reasons that are supporting the fact that somehow French nuclear is in fact great or in fact the victim of bad anti-nuclear. Some of these reasons are really anecdotal and never appear when professional discuss the subject. So, yes, it looks very biased, and you sounds like a living proof of what the initial article (I'm not always agreeing with it on all the points, btw) is talking about.

Kuinox 2y ago
> even if sometimes they are a bit bullshit, like the German sabotage The report is from the Ecole de Guerre Economique, which is renowed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Warfare_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Warfare_School They do give concrete examples, > The Heinrich Böll Foundation has had a physical presence in France since 2016. Based at 80 quai de Jemmapes in the 10th arrondissement - the same address as the Sherpa association92 - the Paris branch conducts influence operations against French nuclear power in several fields: public, media and political. The aim of its presence in these fields is to create an unfavorable environment for the deployment of nuclear power in France, with the support of other anti-nuclear relays. Initially, this presence has manifested itself in the recurrent production of content between 2018 and 2021. Publications included: [...] And the publications are targeted to the french audience. It looks like you only read the document superficially. > You criticize the sentence "France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011", which is sourced and is true (even when accounting projection for 2024), by bringing several correct elements. But you are doing the same error as the sentence you criticize: you bring cherry-picked arguments. Something having multiple causes and pointing them is not "cherry picking". I gave 3 differents reasons why france lost more annual kWh than germany in their graph, it isn't because you dislike the information that it is cherrypicking, in order to provide it, provide more context that contredict so said "cherry picking". As I said, there are at least 3 reasons: - aftermath of the covid, that is now completly recovered only as this year. - sabotage of our industry, I did not say the direct consequence, but it's closing perfectly working plants because if it. > (even when accounting projection for 2024) You again mentioned information without sourced it (well, you sourced none of it since the beginning), please show a projection, this is available public data. > For example, [...] You are again making up an exemple that is far from our current discussion to depict what I say as insane. > nuclear is in fact great or in fact the victim of bad anti-nuclear Are you saying that the loss of technical expertise isn't tied at all to the anti-nuclear movement ? > The problem is that you don't mention any of them. Are you accusing me of not depicting the full picture of the french energy industry when calling out that the author article is very biased ?
- cauch 2y ago
  > They do give concrete examples The example you copy is not really anything concrete. Yes, the Heinrich Böll Foundation exists, has physical presence is several country, as an association with a political party and has an opinion on some policies. That is not at all unusual, and you have similar foundation, sometimes anti-, sometimes pro-nuclear, everywhere. Just put yourself in their shoes: if you were in France and convinced that the nuclear pathway was good for mankind and that some people in Germany were interested to publish results that is consistent with what you think, why would you not collaborate with them? But what this report does not do is to provide anything concrete. There is absolutely not proof that any of this had any impact whatsoever. There is no proof that it is a inference attempt and not just some people wanting to share their ideas in a given subject. There is no proof is was with the explicit goal of misinforming people (you realize that if these article published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation are scientifically correct, then it is a GOOD THING they have been published in France, right?). There is also no discussion about pro-nuclear publications supported by other foundations and how they could have impacted the French policy. At the same time as these publications, France government was very pro-nuclear, which is rather a proof that inference from Germany had few to no impact. > it isn't because you dislike the information that it is cherrypicking Of course not, and I don't "dislike" these information. I'm just saying that those are pretty low ranking when normal people discuss what's happening in France and that if you were neutral, it's very strange to randomly point to 3 different reasons that are all pretty uninfluencal on the situation while conveniently "forgetting" the other reasons. And I say it again: these other reasons are not particularly anti-nuclear, but they are just not framing the situation as "in fact everything is perfect" or "in fact it's all the fault of the anti-nuclear". They are showing that it is more complex and maybe less about "renewable vs nuclear" like you try to frame the discussion. > You again mentioned information without sourced it Uh? YOU were saying that the projection of 2024 is missing. So, I've assumed you had source for it, so I did not need to provide a source. That's really crazy: you seem to use "source" as a random free-of-jail card to reject things that are not convenient for you. Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't need to scream "source" each time the other interlocutor does not bring a source, only if it's not easy for them to find the source and therefore suspect the interlocutor got confused in their conclusions. As for source, a very easily source to find is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_in_France.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media... As you can see, the French curve is the same in the article than in the svg (you have to subtract the blue area). And as you can see, projection for 2024 are again dropping w.r.t to 2023. So, yes, the conclusion from the article is still correct. So now, your turn: what are your sources to say that the sentence will not be true if the projection for 2024 are included? > You are again making up an exemple that is far from our current discussion to depict what I say as insane. You know what an analogy is, right? > Are you saying that the loss of technical expertise isn't tied at all to the anti-nuclear movement ? What? No its not. It's due to budget and short-term vision. At the same time, France was maintaining its expertise in plenty of other sectors that may or may not be popular, in military engineering, in spyware, in chemistry, ... The politicians in France have majoritarly supported the idea of a french nuclear sector until the 2000's, which is well after the expertise started to erode. (some nice summary of the reasons: https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f786 https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f... I'm sure you can cherry-pick stuff, but they explain that the drop of expertise was because of a global drop on industrial jobs for an increase of service jobs and was not at all limited to nuclear. It also affected the automotive industry, for example) > Are you accusing me of not depicting the full picture of the french energy industry when calling out that the author article is very biased ? I am saying that you are more biased than the author article. The author article is not perfect, but I see more effort on their side to depict a fair and realistic situation (starting the article with "Nuclear energy has been great", with several sentence pro-nuclear in their article) than from you.

by cauch 2y ago

Kuinox 2y ago

> even if sometimes they are a bit bullshit, like the German sabotage The report is from the Ecole de Guerre Economique, which is renowed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Warfare_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Warfare_School They do give concrete examples, > The Heinrich Böll Foundation has had a physical presence in France since 2016. Based at 80 quai de Jemmapes in the 10th arrondissement - the same address as the Sherpa association92 - the Paris branch conducts influence operations against French nuclear power in several fields: public, media and political. The aim of its presence in these fields is to create an unfavorable environment for the deployment of nuclear power in France, with the support of other anti-nuclear relays. Initially, this presence has manifested itself in the recurrent production of content between 2018 and 2021. Publications included: [...] And the publications are targeted to the french audience. It looks like you only read the document superficially. > You criticize the sentence "France has lost more annual kWh from nuclear than Germany since 2011", which is sourced and is true (even when accounting projection for 2024), by bringing several correct elements. But you are doing the same error as the sentence you criticize: you bring cherry-picked arguments. Something having multiple causes and pointing them is not "cherry picking". I gave 3 differents reasons why france lost more annual kWh than germany in their graph, it isn't because you dislike the information that it is cherrypicking, in order to provide it, provide more context that contredict so said "cherry picking". As I said, there are at least 3 reasons: - aftermath of the covid, that is now completly recovered only as this year. - sabotage of our industry, I did not say the direct consequence, but it's closing perfectly working plants because if it. > (even when accounting projection for 2024) You again mentioned information without sourced it (well, you sourced none of it since the beginning), please show a projection, this is available public data. > For example, [...] You are again making up an exemple that is far from our current discussion to depict what I say as insane. > nuclear is in fact great or in fact the victim of bad anti-nuclear Are you saying that the loss of technical expertise isn't tied at all to the anti-nuclear movement ? > The problem is that you don't mention any of them. Are you accusing me of not depicting the full picture of the french energy industry when calling out that the author article is very biased ?

cauch 2y ago
> They do give concrete examples The example you copy is not really anything concrete. Yes, the Heinrich Böll Foundation exists, has physical presence is several country, as an association with a political party and has an opinion on some policies. That is not at all unusual, and you have similar foundation, sometimes anti-, sometimes pro-nuclear, everywhere. Just put yourself in their shoes: if you were in France and convinced that the nuclear pathway was good for mankind and that some people in Germany were interested to publish results that is consistent with what you think, why would you not collaborate with them? But what this report does not do is to provide anything concrete. There is absolutely not proof that any of this had any impact whatsoever. There is no proof that it is a inference attempt and not just some people wanting to share their ideas in a given subject. There is no proof is was with the explicit goal of misinforming people (you realize that if these article published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation are scientifically correct, then it is a GOOD THING they have been published in France, right?). There is also no discussion about pro-nuclear publications supported by other foundations and how they could have impacted the French policy. At the same time as these publications, France government was very pro-nuclear, which is rather a proof that inference from Germany had few to no impact. > it isn't because you dislike the information that it is cherrypicking Of course not, and I don't "dislike" these information. I'm just saying that those are pretty low ranking when normal people discuss what's happening in France and that if you were neutral, it's very strange to randomly point to 3 different reasons that are all pretty uninfluencal on the situation while conveniently "forgetting" the other reasons. And I say it again: these other reasons are not particularly anti-nuclear, but they are just not framing the situation as "in fact everything is perfect" or "in fact it's all the fault of the anti-nuclear". They are showing that it is more complex and maybe less about "renewable vs nuclear" like you try to frame the discussion. > You again mentioned information without sourced it Uh? YOU were saying that the projection of 2024 is missing. So, I've assumed you had source for it, so I did not need to provide a source. That's really crazy: you seem to use "source" as a random free-of-jail card to reject things that are not convenient for you. Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't need to scream "source" each time the other interlocutor does not bring a source, only if it's not easy for them to find the source and therefore suspect the interlocutor got confused in their conclusions. As for source, a very easily source to find is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_in_France.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media... As you can see, the French curve is the same in the article than in the svg (you have to subtract the blue area). And as you can see, projection for 2024 are again dropping w.r.t to 2023. So, yes, the conclusion from the article is still correct. So now, your turn: what are your sources to say that the sentence will not be true if the projection for 2024 are included? > You are again making up an exemple that is far from our current discussion to depict what I say as insane. You know what an analogy is, right? > Are you saying that the loss of technical expertise isn't tied at all to the anti-nuclear movement ? What? No its not. It's due to budget and short-term vision. At the same time, France was maintaining its expertise in plenty of other sectors that may or may not be popular, in military engineering, in spyware, in chemistry, ... The politicians in France have majoritarly supported the idea of a french nuclear sector until the 2000's, which is well after the expertise started to erode. (some nice summary of the reasons: https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f786 https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f... I'm sure you can cherry-pick stuff, but they explain that the drop of expertise was because of a global drop on industrial jobs for an increase of service jobs and was not at all limited to nuclear. It also affected the automotive industry, for example) > Are you accusing me of not depicting the full picture of the french energy industry when calling out that the author article is very biased ? I am saying that you are more biased than the author article. The author article is not perfect, but I see more effort on their side to depict a fair and realistic situation (starting the article with "Nuclear energy has been great", with several sentence pro-nuclear in their article) than from you.