3 ms·

Spot on IMHO as far as my understanding of the economics goes, going back years. Only real argument is "but you need _something_ for base load" and wishcasting

Spot on IMHO as far as my understanding of the economics goes, going back years. Only real argument is "but you need _something_ for base load" and wishcasting re: SMRs.[1] IMHO Microsoft and Facebook's odd PR rounds around it in service of their AI stories didn't help public policy at all [1] I'm an odd duck and extremely bullish on fusion and bearish on SMRs, Commonwealth fusion keeps hitting milestones, whereas I haven't heard of any SMRs shipping in any quantity

lazyeye 1y ago
Yes you do "need _something_ for base load", obviously. And noone appears to have any reliable solution to this apart from nuclear. So commonsense is playing a part here (not something you often see, particular in the HN comments section).
- refulgentis 1y ago
  I'm kind of stunned how much extra effort you put into being condescending over and over during a contribution whose idea is "only nuclear is reliable for base load" Kinda shocking we have a power system then, no? :)
  - lazyeye 1y ago
    No it's not shocking. For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix) if we want to go fully carbon-free. I'm not explaining anything complicated here.
    - refulgentis 1y ago
      I don't know what you're trying to say, at all, really, because you were very condescending and now, very short. "For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear" is false. "For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear" is true. "For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix)" is nigh-unparsable. In any case, it's unreasonable to claim I thought the following was false: For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear Nothing in my comment could plausibly indicate it. In fact, my comment says: "Only real argument is "but you need _something_ for base load"" Also in any case, your tone in both cases has robbed us of a positive interaction, in favor of you getting to feel good, but really smug, for 30 seconds after your first comment.
    - lazyeye 1y ago
      ok I was assuming you would understand the obvious context in which nuclear power was being discussed. And I dont feel good or smug or anything like that. I'II leave it there.

lazyeye 1y ago

Yes you do "need _something_ for base load", obviously. And noone appears to have any reliable solution to this apart from nuclear. So commonsense is playing a part here (not something you often see, particular in the HN comments section).

refulgentis 1y ago
I'm kind of stunned how much extra effort you put into being condescending over and over during a contribution whose idea is "only nuclear is reliable for base load" Kinda shocking we have a power system then, no? :)
- lazyeye 1y ago
  No it's not shocking. For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix) if we want to go fully carbon-free. I'm not explaining anything complicated here.
  - refulgentis 1y ago
    I don't know what you're trying to say, at all, really, because you were very condescending and now, very short. "For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear" is false. "For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear" is true. "For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix)" is nigh-unparsable. In any case, it's unreasonable to claim I thought the following was false: For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear Nothing in my comment could plausibly indicate it. In fact, my comment says: "Only real argument is "but you need _something_ for base load"" Also in any case, your tone in both cases has robbed us of a positive interaction, in favor of you getting to feel good, but really smug, for 30 seconds after your first comment.
  - lazyeye 1y ago
    ok I was assuming you would understand the obvious context in which nuclear power was being discussed. And I dont feel good or smug or anything like that. I'II leave it there.