5 ms·

The fact that their system cost is prohibitive in the real world? The fact that we don’t fucking have the slightest idea of how to deal with recycling that stuf

The fact that their system cost is prohibitive in the real world? The fact that we don’t fucking have the slightest idea of how to deal with recycling that stuff on their EOL? Or would be the fact that mining cobalt and lithium in the required quantities to indulge on the fantasy of a solar/wind based grid would poison an inordinate portion of our environment? Or would it be the fact that every single fucking country that went all in on the siren’s song of the renewable industry scammer is now plagued with absurdly high energy costs and are slipping into becoming impoverished third world de-industrialized economies like the UK and Germany?

pfdietz 2y ago
You provide excellent examples of the bogosity of the arguments. Let me demolish them in turn. 1) System cost Sure, it's high. That's because we spend huge amounts of money on energy. ANY system to replace fossil fuels will be expensive, in the trillions of dollars. But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables. 2) Recycling At worst, we can bury the stuff. Recycling it is not necessary. After all, the amount of material is small compared to everything else we do in society, and it's not some special kind of waste (like high level nuclear waste) that requires some particularly unique handling. 3) Lithium and cobalt Lithium is abundant. If you hadn't been paying attention, the price has been crashing, as it pretty much always does after a price spike of a mineral resource, when the price spike encourages investment to increase the amount available. As for cobalt: probably the same is true, but why do you think cobalt is needed? 4) poison the environment This is just emotional bullshit. No, renewables would not "poison the environment". You beclown yourself with this nonsense. 5) absurdly high energy cost As opposed to those still burning fossil fuels where they are foisting off the cost of the externalities on others? Ignoring those external costs doesn't make them go away. In any case, the place that's normally pointed to is Germany, where they made a large investment in renewables from 2009-2012. Solar was much more expensive then, and they are still paying that down. But the costs of renewables crash with time, so pointing to past expenditures is grossly misleading. Going forward renewables will be much cheaper. That's why we're seeing so much investment in them now globally. One can tell the intellectual barrenness of the pro-nuclear position when you have to resort to this sort of deplorable nonsense.
- akerl_ 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
  - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
    I strongly wish we had more comments like the one you're responding to. I find most comments here to be obnoxiously polite and I wish more ignorant opinions were publicly demolished as they should be, rather than continue to spread misinformation because it's the polite thing to do. Not all opinions are created equal.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      I agree.
    - elzbardico 2y ago
      Well, I may be ignorant, but the reality of the my relatives energy bill in Germany and the UK tends to agree with my ignorance. Maybe you are just smart enough to regurgitate the propaganda, but not enough to think for yourself. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-charge-of-labours-green-energy-dream-its-at-the-limit-of-whats-achievable https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-...
      - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        It's more the fact that you're willfully ignorant which makes you annoying. Numerous people have already explained to you why you're wrong and you just keep repeating yourself. You're a hypocrite and you don't even realize it. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
- polotics 2y ago
  Indeed you have to look at the figures, no amount of wordage without computation will get you a true answer, still calling someone or something deplorable is, I am sorry, a dog-whistle. So to clear the air I propose you look at this substantive set of answers: https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA (cc to english should work ok) https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI

pfdietz 2y ago

You provide excellent examples of the bogosity of the arguments. Let me demolish them in turn. 1) System cost Sure, it's high. That's because we spend huge amounts of money on energy. ANY system to replace fossil fuels will be expensive, in the trillions of dollars. But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables. 2) Recycling At worst, we can bury the stuff. Recycling it is not necessary. After all, the amount of material is small compared to everything else we do in society, and it's not some special kind of waste (like high level nuclear waste) that requires some particularly unique handling. 3) Lithium and cobalt Lithium is abundant. If you hadn't been paying attention, the price has been crashing, as it pretty much always does after a price spike of a mineral resource, when the price spike encourages investment to increase the amount available. As for cobalt: probably the same is true, but why do you think cobalt is needed? 4) poison the environment This is just emotional bullshit. No, renewables would not "poison the environment". You beclown yourself with this nonsense. 5) absurdly high energy cost As opposed to those still burning fossil fuels where they are foisting off the cost of the externalities on others? Ignoring those external costs doesn't make them go away. In any case, the place that's normally pointed to is Germany, where they made a large investment in renewables from 2009-2012. Solar was much more expensive then, and they are still paying that down. But the costs of renewables crash with time, so pointing to past expenditures is grossly misleading. Going forward renewables will be much cheaper. That's why we're seeing so much investment in them now globally. One can tell the intellectual barrenness of the pro-nuclear position when you have to resort to this sort of deplorable nonsense.

akerl_ 2y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  I strongly wish we had more comments like the one you're responding to. I find most comments here to be obnoxiously polite and I wish more ignorant opinions were publicly demolished as they should be, rather than continue to spread misinformation because it's the polite thing to do. Not all opinions are created equal.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    I agree.
  - elzbardico 2y ago
    Well, I may be ignorant, but the reality of the my relatives energy bill in Germany and the UK tends to agree with my ignorance. Maybe you are just smart enough to regurgitate the propaganda, but not enough to think for yourself. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-charge-of-labours-green-energy-dream-its-at-the-limit-of-whats-achievable https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-...
    - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
      It's more the fact that you're willfully ignorant which makes you annoying. Numerous people have already explained to you why you're wrong and you just keep repeating yourself. You're a hypocrite and you don't even realize it. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
polotics 2y ago
Indeed you have to look at the figures, no amount of wordage without computation will get you a true answer, still calling someone or something deplorable is, I am sorry, a dog-whistle. So to clear the air I propose you look at this substantive set of answers: https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA (cc to english should work ok) https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI