3 ms·
The book is 5 years old, it won't properly account for the incredible improvements made since then. What I'm interested in is avoiding wasting money on nuclear
by afterburner 13y ago
The book is 5 years old, it won't properly account for the incredible improvements made since then.
What I'm interested in is avoiding wasting money on nuclear power.
- afterburner 13y agoPro-nuclear HN'ers downvote opposing views like crazy, let it be known.
- lemming 13y agoYou're not being downvoted because your views are unpopular. You're being downvoted because your comments in this thread at least are basically content-free, and full of unsubstantiated assertions. You've refused to even look at the resource I provided, and have preferred to argue that things ...probably also mean... and the like with no evidence of any kind. You've attributed things to me that I didn't say. You've also repeatedly failed to address the fact that the main issues facing alternative energies are not technical, but political and social, and those haven't changed in the last 5 years nor are they likely to any time soon. Basically, it seems like you're more interested in shouting from a soapbox than having any sort of argument, and HN frowns on that.
- afterburner 13y agoYou don't think that renewable costs per watt plummeting towards coal/nat.gas. price is a significant part of the decision making? Politics get overridden by price at some point. You've failed to acknowledge that maybe a book on renewables from 5 years ago, focusing primarily on the technical side, might have some problems when so much has changed since that time. My assertions aren't unsubstantiated, I linked to the them in my initial response. I don't really care why I'm being downvoted.