3 ms·

I’m sorry but you are the one doing the spinning. You keep putting words into my mouth and then ignoring everything else I said.. I repeated that cost (of cour

I’m sorry but you are the one doing the spinning. You keep putting words into my mouth and then ignoring everything else I said.. I repeated that cost (of course only if externalities, that hardly anyone was fully aware of back in the 80s, are excluded) was the primary reason why nuclear failed. Do you really think that public opinion had no impact and did not accelerate it, though? > "everyone is crazy but me" Is that how you feel? Must be interesting..

pfdietz 2y ago
I think public opinion had nothing to do with it. You observe that there was a segment of public against it, but you have not connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect. We see plans for nuclear go up and down based on economic conditions. Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that. The nuclear renaissance was going great when natural gas seemed like it was running out. It collapsed when fracking made gas cheap again. Today there's concern for AI power demand and nuclear seems to be getting traction. Public opinion isn't driving any of that.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Like Carter deciding to not share his private opinion on Three Mile Island because it would had been very unpopular amongst his voter base? There was a period when being a pro nuclear liberal/central-left politician was politically suicidal. > connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect. It’s not my job to put in significant amount of effort to try and change your opinion (which is worth exactly as much as mine is). > The nuclear renaissance was going great That’s an exaggeration. Even back then nuclear was hardly seen as cost effective without a lot of squinting. The number of new reactors was hardly significant. > Public opinion isn't driving any of that You mean currently? Perhaps. Don’t see how is that an argument when talking about the 80s. > Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that That obviously not true. Unless you ignore how, when and by whom the decisions to close the remaining nuclear reactors in e.g. Germany were made. Especially considering that then (before cheap renewables were available) we already knew that nuclear was cost competitive if negative externalities are accounted for (which was only partially the case back in the 80s).
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    It's your job to present a convincing argument for your position. You cannot show any good evidence for it, though. You can merely assert correlation (if a bad one, given that nuclear was in trouble long before TMI or Chernobyl). It's clear what's going on here: the actual situation, that nuclear has failed economically, is completely unacceptable to you, so you are confabulating a fantasy that something else caused nuclear's troubles. It's wishful denial of reality to preserve the illusion that your energy waifu has any chance.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      > nuclear has failed economically, is completely unacceptable to you Surely you must be trolling? Or you just can’t read? How many times did I repeat that? > It's wishful denial of reality I mean you are literally looking and what I wrote and seeing words that are not there.

pfdietz 2y ago

I think public opinion had nothing to do with it. You observe that there was a segment of public against it, but you have not connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect. We see plans for nuclear go up and down based on economic conditions. Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that. The nuclear renaissance was going great when natural gas seemed like it was running out. It collapsed when fracking made gas cheap again. Today there's concern for AI power demand and nuclear seems to be getting traction. Public opinion isn't driving any of that.

wqaatwt 2y ago
Like Carter deciding to not share his private opinion on Three Mile Island because it would had been very unpopular amongst his voter base? There was a period when being a pro nuclear liberal/central-left politician was politically suicidal. > connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect. It’s not my job to put in significant amount of effort to try and change your opinion (which is worth exactly as much as mine is). > The nuclear renaissance was going great That’s an exaggeration. Even back then nuclear was hardly seen as cost effective without a lot of squinting. The number of new reactors was hardly significant. > Public opinion isn't driving any of that You mean currently? Perhaps. Don’t see how is that an argument when talking about the 80s. > Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that That obviously not true. Unless you ignore how, when and by whom the decisions to close the remaining nuclear reactors in e.g. Germany were made. Especially considering that then (before cheap renewables were available) we already knew that nuclear was cost competitive if negative externalities are accounted for (which was only partially the case back in the 80s).
- pfdietz 2y ago
  It's your job to present a convincing argument for your position. You cannot show any good evidence for it, though. You can merely assert correlation (if a bad one, given that nuclear was in trouble long before TMI or Chernobyl). It's clear what's going on here: the actual situation, that nuclear has failed economically, is completely unacceptable to you, so you are confabulating a fantasy that something else caused nuclear's troubles. It's wishful denial of reality to preserve the illusion that your energy waifu has any chance.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    > nuclear has failed economically, is completely unacceptable to you Surely you must be trolling? Or you just can’t read? How many times did I repeat that? > It's wishful denial of reality I mean you are literally looking and what I wrote and seeing words that are not there.