4 ms·

> The failure was humans Isn't it always true, for such matters? As we cannot avoid committing errors it seems better to prefer a way without any risk of majo

> The failure was humans Isn't it always true, for such matters? As we cannot avoid committing errors it seems better to prefer a way without any risk of major accident (very dangerous radioactive things, difficult to cleanup, travelling long-distance thanks to wind, rain...). No wonder renewable sources quickly gain traction.

Dalewyn 2y ago
Characterizing the failure of politicians as a failure of nuclear power is the error in logic I am talking about.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Refusing to understand that everyone (politician or not) can fail and that if we now can replace something dangerous in case of failure (nuclear) by something new which isn't (renewables), we should do so... is the error in logic I am talking about.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    You're essentially arguing that kitchen knives should be banned because a small handful of psychos will murder someone with them. That isn't how this works.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      No, because we have ne replacement for kitchen knives. We have a replacement for nuclear: renewables.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Sincerely, please stop talking nonsense. Renewables can be a complement to other power sources, but to even suggest they can be a "replacement" for nuclear power indicates either naivety or ignorance.
        natmaka 2y ago
        Quantitatively this replacement is already done (renewables produce way more than nuclear) and is running (nuclear produces less and less), right now, nearly everywhere (explore using 'Change country or region'): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
- teamonkey 2y ago
  You cannot separate the human equation from the technology. As I said: "The big problem with nuclear is not technological, it’s guaranteeing that whoever is responsible for it will be competent, capable and solvent for hundreds of years."

Dalewyn 2y ago

Characterizing the failure of politicians as a failure of nuclear power is the error in logic I am talking about.

natmaka 2y ago
Refusing to understand that everyone (politician or not) can fail and that if we now can replace something dangerous in case of failure (nuclear) by something new which isn't (renewables), we should do so... is the error in logic I am talking about.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  You're essentially arguing that kitchen knives should be banned because a small handful of psychos will murder someone with them. That isn't how this works.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    No, because we have ne replacement for kitchen knives. We have a replacement for nuclear: renewables.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Sincerely, please stop talking nonsense. Renewables can be a complement to other power sources, but to even suggest they can be a "replacement" for nuclear power indicates either naivety or ignorance.
      - natmaka 2y ago
        Quantitatively this replacement is already done (renewables produce way more than nuclear) and is running (nuclear produces less and less), right now, nearly everywhere (explore using 'Change country or region'): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
teamonkey 2y ago
You cannot separate the human equation from the technology. As I said: "The big problem with nuclear is not technological, it’s guaranteeing that whoever is responsible for it will be competent, capable and solvent for hundreds of years."