I didn't say stop talking about everything. I see straw men are going to be your next tactic. Sad.
As to historical fact, I've already dealt with this transparent deception in a discussion just the other day. I'm not going to be baited into it here. It bores me.
As to your conviction that your tea leaf reading is accurate. Time will tell.
All cost estimates of nuclear are artificial at this point. This has been done to death. We can compare costs within and outside of the zone of anti nuclear activism and they're not comparable in so far as expense.
No, I'm not addressing that because it is boring for me now. There was a previous discussion we had a couple days ago and that burned me out on this point.
As to solar and wind taking off... speculate away. It may happen... it may not. You've read the tea leaves and apparently think you know the signs.
I've seen a lot of people that have been just as confident as you and then watched time prove them wrong. Very few of them had the integrity or even the attention span to remember what they had said in the past and admit they made an error.
Doubly so you get this behavior when people make predictions and then call anyone that says otherwise an idiot or something. As if it is a mark of stupidity to question tea leaves and chicken entrails.
Calm down. Time will tell and there's no point arguing about your silly prophesy one way or the other. It will either come to pass or not. And either way this discussion right here and now will have no impact on that outcome. Be patient.
It is enough to say "you want this to happen"... well, good for you. Beyond that, this is all self delusion and intellectual masturbation.
Look at the line drawn to signify the "present"... that is where we are now.
Everything beyond that is speculation. You can say "but we have people talking about building X or Y"... sure. And I've seen enough of these projection graphs created for other things to know they're not worth much. They tend to be wildly inaccurate.
I'd throw out a few examples but I can already hear the politicos Reeeing over how embarrassing it is to show predictions at time T and then what actually happened at T+5.
There's a lot of politics involved in these things. The people making predictions have a track record of not having a good mental filter between what they want and what they're seeing.
If anyone finds that "triggering"... leave it at this, at time T... "now"... the argument is not credible. At crystal ball gazing future time T+30 years you can predict anything you like. Aliens invading, everyone integrating with personal AIs, Scientology being the dominant global religion. Its all just tea leaves and animal entrails.
Predict whatever you want. But the wise know the secret of prophesy is not in the ability to predict the future but to manipulate the present by getting people to believe in your prediction.
I am too much goat to be folded into that flock of sheep.
Not at all, I offered a reasonable compromise to allow common sense regulations whilst discouraging anti nuclear activism masqrading as safety regulation.
New regulation if it has a cost would be paid by the government in this case.
Take the Fukushima incident since you seem to think that was a failure in reactor design or regulation. Exactly what would you specifically change in regulation to avoid that situation? And what would that cost the companies or investors that own the reactors?
My understanding of the Fukushima incident was that there was not third party inspections by the Japanese government and that a culture falsified reports had set in at the plant. Effectively they were supposed to do various things to maintain the plant and did not leading to various faults that were not the fault of the reactor design but rather a flaw in the human management team.
What would that cost? Well, in Fukushima, my understanding is that some of the maintenance had not been done in over 10 years despite being recommended by the reactor builders about once a year.
What is the cost of sending an inspector or even a team of inspectors out to check whether a plant is following proceedure? I should think that would be relatively modest in cost and the government could absorb those costs for old reactors that were built before that cost was assumed. New reactors would not get that grandfather clause and would have to pay the new costs.
What is more, old reactors will eventually age out and thus any grandfather clause will not exist permanently as the reactors do not exist permanently.
I understand your concern. If there is something that needs to be done to the reactors or the regulations of them for health and safety then it must be done. Clearly. However, given the rabid irrational anti nuclear lobby it is certain that they will attempt to use this to shut down reactors or make it very hard to build new ones.
I'd like to make that counter productive for them. If the public doesn't want reactors then clearly that is fine. I believe in democracy. But the activists don't believe in democracy because they try to enact law through back door regulations.
We can go through a whole series of issues where this has become common. Our entire government was set up on the understanding that people are prone to be corrupt. It is why we separation of powers, due process, etc. Given that corruption is an understood element of our species and any system we set up has to take that into consideration, it is important that we establish rules that protect the health and safety of our people whilst not offering a mechanism for corrupt people to pervert the system.
If my solution is not acceptable then so be it... but you must have something to restrain this element or it will run rampant. So what is your idea? I swear, if you don't at least acknowledge the issue then you're basically arguing people aren't prone to corruption. Its okay if you don't have a solution and don't like my solution. I'm just spit balling here. I'm just saying this is a problem and we need "a" solution for it and I offered up one that I pulled out of the air.
This is mindless SJWism and everyone knows it but the cultists.
But any company that takes this seriously should put their existential future where their stupid mouths are... and just kill their company.
Hire people that aren't qualified merely on the basis of who is more or less statistically represented.
Burn the company to the ground. And when there's nothing left but ashes and finger pointing... the industry can be rebuilt by people with the courage and integrity to stand their ground.
I'm sure there are devotees of the cult that are offended by the statement, I am not an adherent to your religion.
I find the suggestion that I should take it seriously as silly as you would take the suggestion that only Christians following christian doctrine should be hired. Its that absurd.
But obviously fundamentalists are not known for being sensible. So this is going to continue until they burn it down. We already are seeing companies leave not only the bay area but California entirely. And not merely for tax or real estate issues but literally because the culture has gone toxic.
I know I know... The great sage has prophesied that when the planets align your golden age will come to pass... which is why everyone else has to get on the right side of history... because these people on top of everything else think they have an accurate prophesy of the future. Literally. Otherwise how would they know what was the "right side of history"... they're saying that in the end they'll get what they want. And yet the industry is already very international and most of the international partners on top of the domestic companies that are leaving are not ascribing to this stuff.
Its not good for any industry in which it takes over. Its even f'ing up hollywood, journalism, and academia is lousy with it.
But these people are not open to correction. They were told the word of god at some point and anyone that disagrees is a dirty infidel. So this is just going to have to play out to the pain.
Well, then to rebut your point, the magical fairies from the land of Falalala have said that your position is entirely promoted by evil necromancers from the inside of this acorn.
Seriously, unless you're kidding and conceding the point to me through sarcasm this is possibly the most epic foot in mouth move I've seen on slashdot in possibly years. And that's a high damn standard.
you didn't address the coal and natural gas element and thus failed in rebutting my point.
read my point again and try again.
Also respond to the china point.
If you don't respond to my argument then you haven't responded to it. This ranting on something that wasn't relevant is at best irrelevant and at worst an attempted straw man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ""As of March 2018, the People's Republic of China has 38 nuclear reactors operating with a capacity of 34.5 GW and 18 under construction with a capacity of 21 GW.[2][3][4] Additional reactors are planned, providing 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[5] Nuclear power contributed 3% of the total production in 2015, with 170 TWh,[6] and was the fastest-growing electricity source, with 29% growth over 2014.[7] Nuclear generation increased again in 2016 to 213 TWh, a 25% increase,[8] and in 2017 to 246 TWh, a 15% increase.[9] China ranks fourth in the world in total nuclear power capacity installed, and third by nuclear power generated.""
I think you're wrong. Wikipedia seems to be directly 180 degrees contradicting you.
I feel like you just say things without making any effort to validate whether any of it is real or not. I base this on past discussions we've had where the same thing has occurred. I'll say something, you'll say it is wrong, I'll provide a link to validate my position, and you won't.
Please cite a source that says what you just said above? Where did you get that information?
Look at the wikipedia article and you'll see china's total nuclear power capacity AND THE SHARE OF TOTAL power generation is increasingly nuclear.
Look, opposition to nuclear is mostly political tribalism. Talk to nuclear engineers or anyone that has a clue about nuclear power and most of them wax lyrical on the issue.
I'm sure you find your position being revealed as transparent political tribalism to be problematic... but it is transparent. Stop buying hand fed arguments from your political tribe and repeating them mindlessly. Look at how foolish it makes you seem. You weren't even partially wrong with your assertion you hadn't researched at all before believing totally. You were completely wrong. How embarrassing.
Seriously, for your own sake, shape up. Change your information sources. They're just using you.
Literally how much of the cost inflation is the effect of political activism?
We have the same problem with the death penality where interference with the logistics is so heavy that they are having a hard time getting their hands on the drugs required to perform a lethal injection.
Some of the drugs have dual uses for other medical proceedures... and the shortages are so heavy that patients that need those drugs to treat them can't get access to the drugs.
Here is another point on that, look at countries outside of the US regulatory system... say in China etc... they're clearly highly econonical absent anti nuclear activism inflating costs. We can see that very clearly in nations where it is not politically relevant.
You can also talk to nuclear engineers that have designed newer reactor designs and they'll validate this position.
Here is what we need to fix the situation: 1. We need a reasonable place to store spent fuel. 2. Life time of reactor regulations that don't change after the fact. An investment problem is that you can sink billions into a reactor and then the regulations change which make a good financial move a bad one. This ex post facto legislation makes nuclear more risky than other systems that don't suffer from that pattern. You fix this by locking relevant regulation to what it was when the reactor was built. New reactors would follow new rules but older reactors would be shielded from changes because it impacts costs dramatically sometimes. Subsidizing reactors that follow new rules is a good compromise. So old reactors follow new rules but you make the situation whole by paying for the cost of new regulation. 3. Smaller new reactors instead of the giant old reactors. They're safer, less conspicuous, and a much smaller investment. 4. The Not In My Back Yard ism (NIMYism) is out of control with nuclear. No one wants to live next to an airport or a water treatment facility, but we need them. If we place it 10 miles away from you, then that should be good enough. Often people complain about reactors that are 400 miles from them. Its fucking stupid.
Naturally none of this is going to happen. The environmental lobby wants to reduce CO2 but doesn't want to use the only technology that will actually do it.
its a giant stupid shit show. Cue lots of ignorant people saying wind and solar. Which is just a vote for natural gas and coal. Which means the CO2 argument is at best inconsistent.
And yes, I know you're angry and about to post about how great wind and solar is and how wrong it is for me to call you ignorant. But what you've probably failed to do is address the natural gas and coal issue. If you can't answer why every solar and wind project has to be backstopped by as much coal and natural gas... and really everything is just an emotional sputter of mindless outrage... it just validates my point.
So seriously, if you think I'm wrong... natural gas and coal... why are they rolled out to back stop the solar and wind?
The numbers are not similar and the link in the citation is dead. I was skimming the source looking for things to audit to validate the source and... it failed that quick examination. Not saying it doesn't make good points, but its citing 'facts' that aren't facts.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying fusion will or won't happen. I don't know enough about that and technological changes are capable of rendering any prediction as to its economics meaningless.
Consider aluminum. It was once a precious metal. At one time one could conclude that it would never be used as a throw away material in something like soda cans. And yet it is because a new refining process was developed that made production orders of magnitude more efficient.
Dangerous to say never or to presume upon the technology of the future.
You said this in the post where you said you restated my point:
"To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it.
"It seems pretty clear you have some sort of weird anti-statistics agenda." That isn't my point. So first sentence didn't meet the standard.
"While statistics is not a perfect science (arguably no science is), properly applied statistics at least shows its work so you can examine it directly." Second sentence also didn't restate my point.
"If you want to take an anti-statistics stance there is plenty to attack the statistics with, but at least be reasonable enough to point out your qualms instead of just carrying on with this handwaving and dodging." Third sentence didn't meet the standard.
Hmm, this isn't a good start for you and you only have so many sentences left. Sad.
"Though as was stated earlier, you are entitled to hold your opinion if you want." Failure.
"It doesn't seem from this thread that you have any interest in learning enough on this topic to influence your opinion to waver, and you have the right to do that if you wish." Failure
"But claiming that someone should "concede the point" because you aren't willing to read up on the topic is - to put it kindly - not based on sound reasoning."
Okay... so you didn't restate my point to prove that you had actually read what I said even once.
You failing to do this and then citing your failure gives us a fun failure within a failure.
We're done. I gave you lots of chances and all you did with them is whine, prove you never read anything I said, prove you didn't read what you even said, and then use decoy accounts to abuse the mod system.
That's all you did. You're literally the problem with the community and proof as to why the AC system shouldn't even exist. All people like you do with it is troll.
Quote where it was met, I don't think it was there.
As to downmods, you are posting under AC which means you knew you were trolling ME and didn't want your bad behavior to reflect on your main account.
What is more, the downmod system is very vulnerable to sad people that make multiple accounts, as well ideologically biased people, and of course people that just didn't read anything very clearly.
It doesn't mean much. For all I know its all literally just you.
If you think I care about the modding system, then you're mistaken.
Now, if you answered my challenge, quote it. I went through the past posts and saw nothing that approached my challenge.
If you did, then I'll apologize and move forward with the discussion. If you don't, then I'll assume my assessment was accurate and you're likely just lying.
1. You've made it clear you didn't actually read or understand anything I said.
2. As to my exaggeration, I already addressed that.
Being thirsty for a point doesn't mean you have one.;)
If you don't know what I was talking about or my central argument which was not especially relevant to the exaggeration then you're not really talking about what I was talking about.
Any honest person that addressed this would have to confess that you're arguing in very bad faith.
Now, if you want to stop acting like a degenerate, I'll let bygones be bygone and we'll pick up as before and we can see if you actually even disagree with anything I've said once you've understood my point.
To facilitate that, please actually read my argument again and then paraphrase it here so I know you actually read it at least once.
If you don't do that, then I have to assume you're doubling down on arguing against a point you didn't understand in the first place.
To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it. If after actually reading my point you disagree with it, then I can offer citations. After providing those, I'll expect you to concede the point to me.
You can pretend to be 20 people all day. All I see is "AC". Listening to some guy try to elevate his position by pretending to be other people is not going to work.
As to not understanding what a strawman is, I don' think you understand what a strawman is... here is a link to explain it to you:
""A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."""
Because you clearly have a reading comprehension issue as evidenced by not understanding what I said or he said... I'm going to specific cite the bit of that above quote that you should have read if you were competent at the task:
""while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.""
""not presented by that opponent.""
Now, as I pointed out immediately when I cited strawman... which you missed because you have a reading comprehension issue... I did not suggest or advocate for a patient to be given a random cocktail or be seen by a snake oil salesman etc. I pointed this out above... you missed it because you're probably mostly illiterate.
I know... you're offended. But you have no right to be offended. The point is accurate. There is no justification for you position and issuing the comments you've issued is a damning confession on your own part.
But seriously, what is the point of this argument? There's nothing productive to be had here. I think you're an idiot and you think whatever irrelevance an idiot thinks.
First it isn't bad. The moral argument is comical.
Second the gesture is pointless as it will be developed either way.
Third given the reality of point 1 and 2, there is a better argument for this "gesture" being a moral evil rather than either moral good or even neutral.
google can do it or not... it won't change anything.
its happening. If various corporate cultures want to special snowflake their way out of contracts that just leaves more opportunities for rival organizations.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say stop talking about everything. I see straw men are going to be your next tactic. Sad.
As to historical fact, I've already dealt with this transparent deception in a discussion just the other day. I'm not going to be baited into it here. It bores me.
As to your conviction that your tea leaf reading is accurate. Time will tell.
Till then, good day, sir.
All cost estimates of nuclear are artificial at this point. This has been done to death. We can compare costs within and outside of the zone of anti nuclear activism and they're not comparable in so far as expense.
No, I'm not addressing that because it is boring for me now. There was a previous discussion we had a couple days ago and that burned me out on this point.
As to solar and wind taking off... speculate away. It may happen... it may not. You've read the tea leaves and apparently think you know the signs.
I've seen a lot of people that have been just as confident as you and then watched time prove them wrong. Very few of them had the integrity or even the attention span to remember what they had said in the past and admit they made an error.
Doubly so you get this behavior when people make predictions and then call anyone that says otherwise an idiot or something. As if it is a mark of stupidity to question tea leaves and chicken entrails.
Calm down. Time will tell and there's no point arguing about your silly prophesy one way or the other. It will either come to pass or not. And either way this discussion right here and now will have no impact on that outcome. Be patient.
It is enough to say "you want this to happen"... well, good for you. Beyond that, this is all self delusion and intellectual masturbation.
this is the image that says it all:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp...
Look at the line drawn to signify the "present"... that is where we are now.
Everything beyond that is speculation. You can say "but we have people talking about building X or Y"... sure. And I've seen enough of these projection graphs created for other things to know they're not worth much. They tend to be wildly inaccurate.
I'd throw out a few examples but I can already hear the politicos Reeeing over how embarrassing it is to show predictions at time T and then what actually happened at T+5.
There's a lot of politics involved in these things. The people making predictions have a track record of not having a good mental filter between what they want and what they're seeing.
If anyone finds that "triggering"... leave it at this, at time T... "now"... the argument is not credible. At crystal ball gazing future time T+30 years you can predict anything you like. Aliens invading, everyone integrating with personal AIs, Scientology being the dominant global religion. Its all just tea leaves and animal entrails.
Predict whatever you want. But the wise know the secret of prophesy is not in the ability to predict the future but to manipulate the present by getting people to believe in your prediction.
I am too much goat to be folded into that flock of sheep.
As to china and nuclear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
China is rapidly expanding their nuclear energy... not decreasing it.
As to why solar and wind have to be back stopped... your answer of politics is... something I'd like to see explained.
I have suspecions on your point which I'm about 99.9% sure about but let me give you the benefit of the doubt here... just for courtesy.
Please explain why the inconsistent power from solar and wind is not the cause of the need for reliable standby systems?
Solar works when the sun shines and there are no clouds in the sky.
Wind works when there is wind.
Neither of these things are consistent.
This means the power is not consistent or reliable.
A coal or natural gas or nuclear power plant is consistent. It can run every day, day and night, good weather and bad weather.
Solar and wind can't make that claim.
So, why would you say the backstopping is politics rather than an obvious consequence of the technological differences?
*gets popcorn and extra butter*
Go back to twitter. If you can't process more than 140 characters then this isn't the place for you.
Not at all, I offered a reasonable compromise to allow common sense regulations whilst discouraging anti nuclear activism masqrading as safety regulation.
New regulation if it has a cost would be paid by the government in this case.
Take the Fukushima incident since you seem to think that was a failure in reactor design or regulation. Exactly what would you specifically change in regulation to avoid that situation? And what would that cost the companies or investors that own the reactors?
My understanding of the Fukushima incident was that there was not third party inspections by the Japanese government and that a culture falsified reports had set in at the plant. Effectively they were supposed to do various things to maintain the plant and did not leading to various faults that were not the fault of the reactor design but rather a flaw in the human management team.
What would that cost? Well, in Fukushima, my understanding is that some of the maintenance had not been done in over 10 years despite being recommended by the reactor builders about once a year.
What is the cost of sending an inspector or even a team of inspectors out to check whether a plant is following proceedure? I should think that would be relatively modest in cost and the government could absorb those costs for old reactors that were built before that cost was assumed. New reactors would not get that grandfather clause and would have to pay the new costs.
What is more, old reactors will eventually age out and thus any grandfather clause will not exist permanently as the reactors do not exist permanently.
I understand your concern. If there is something that needs to be done to the reactors or the regulations of them for health and safety then it must be done. Clearly. However, given the rabid irrational anti nuclear lobby it is certain that they will attempt to use this to shut down reactors or make it very hard to build new ones.
I'd like to make that counter productive for them. If the public doesn't want reactors then clearly that is fine. I believe in democracy. But the activists don't believe in democracy because they try to enact law through back door regulations.
We can go through a whole series of issues where this has become common. Our entire government was set up on the understanding that people are prone to be corrupt. It is why we separation of powers, due process, etc. Given that corruption is an understood element of our species and any system we set up has to take that into consideration, it is important that we establish rules that protect the health and safety of our people whilst not offering a mechanism for corrupt people to pervert the system.
If my solution is not acceptable then so be it... but you must have something to restrain this element or it will run rampant. So what is your idea? I swear, if you don't at least acknowledge the issue then you're basically arguing people aren't prone to corruption. Its okay if you don't have a solution and don't like my solution. I'm just spit balling here. I'm just saying this is a problem and we need "a" solution for it and I offered up one that I pulled out of the air.
I note that you're not addressing any of my points.
smiley emoji
Who is clutching pearls while they complain about "diversity"?
I'm quite happy leaving the meritocracy intact. If that is offensive to you, then that's just tragic.
This is mindless SJWism and everyone knows it but the cultists.
But any company that takes this seriously should put their existential future where their stupid mouths are... and just kill their company.
Hire people that aren't qualified merely on the basis of who is more or less statistically represented.
Burn the company to the ground. And when there's nothing left but ashes and finger pointing... the industry can be rebuilt by people with the courage and integrity to stand their ground.
I'm sure there are devotees of the cult that are offended by the statement, I am not an adherent to your religion.
I find the suggestion that I should take it seriously as silly as you would take the suggestion that only Christians following christian doctrine should be hired. Its that absurd.
But obviously fundamentalists are not known for being sensible. So this is going to continue until they burn it down. We already are seeing companies leave not only the bay area but California entirely. And not merely for tax or real estate issues but literally because the culture has gone toxic.
I know I know... The great sage has prophesied that when the planets align your golden age will come to pass... which is why everyone else has to get on the right side of history... because these people on top of everything else think they have an accurate prophesy of the future. Literally. Otherwise how would they know what was the "right side of history"... they're saying that in the end they'll get what they want. And yet the industry is already very international and most of the international partners on top of the domestic companies that are leaving are not ascribing to this stuff.
Its not good for any industry in which it takes over. Its even f'ing up hollywood, journalism, and academia is lousy with it.
But these people are not open to correction. They were told the word of god at some point and anyone that disagrees is a dirty infidel. So this is just going to have to play out to the pain.
I'm enjoying the show.
So proving my point, you cited nothing.
Well, then to rebut your point, the magical fairies from the land of Falalala have said that your position is entirely promoted by evil necromancers from the inside of this acorn.
Seriously, unless you're kidding and conceding the point to me through sarcasm this is possibly the most epic foot in mouth move I've seen on slashdot in possibly years. And that's a high damn standard.
you didn't address the coal and natural gas element and thus failed in rebutting my point.
read my point again and try again.
Also respond to the china point.
If you don't respond to my argument then you haven't responded to it. This ranting on something that wasn't relevant is at best irrelevant and at worst an attempted straw man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""As of March 2018, the People's Republic of China has 38 nuclear reactors operating with a capacity of 34.5 GW and 18 under construction with a capacity of 21 GW.[2][3][4] Additional reactors are planned, providing 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[5] Nuclear power contributed 3% of the total production in 2015, with 170 TWh,[6] and was the fastest-growing electricity source, with 29% growth over 2014.[7] Nuclear generation increased again in 2016 to 213 TWh, a 25% increase,[8] and in 2017 to 246 TWh, a 15% increase.[9] China ranks fourth in the world in total nuclear power capacity installed, and third by nuclear power generated.""
I think you're wrong. Wikipedia seems to be directly 180 degrees contradicting you.
I feel like you just say things without making any effort to validate whether any of it is real or not. I base this on past discussions we've had where the same thing has occurred. I'll say something, you'll say it is wrong, I'll provide a link to validate my position, and you won't.
Please cite a source that says what you just said above? Where did you get that information?
Look at the wikipedia article and you'll see china's total nuclear power capacity AND THE SHARE OF TOTAL power generation is increasingly nuclear.
Look, opposition to nuclear is mostly political tribalism. Talk to nuclear engineers or anyone that has a clue about nuclear power and most of them wax lyrical on the issue.
I'm sure you find your position being revealed as transparent political tribalism to be problematic... but it is transparent. Stop buying hand fed arguments from your political tribe and repeating them mindlessly. Look at how foolish it makes you seem. You weren't even partially wrong with your assertion you hadn't researched at all before believing totally. You were completely wrong. How embarrassing.
Seriously, for your own sake, shape up. Change your information sources. They're just using you.
Literally how much of the cost inflation is the effect of political activism?
We have the same problem with the death penality where interference with the logistics is so heavy that they are having a hard time getting their hands on the drugs required to perform a lethal injection.
Some of the drugs have dual uses for other medical proceedures... and the shortages are so heavy that patients that need those drugs to treat them can't get access to the drugs.
Here is another point on that, look at countries outside of the US regulatory system... say in China etc... they're clearly highly econonical absent anti nuclear activism inflating costs. We can see that very clearly in nations where it is not politically relevant.
You can also talk to nuclear engineers that have designed newer reactor designs and they'll validate this position.
Here is what we need to fix the situation:
1. We need a reasonable place to store spent fuel.
2. Life time of reactor regulations that don't change after the fact. An investment problem is that you can sink billions into a reactor and then the regulations change which make a good financial move a bad one. This ex post facto legislation makes nuclear more risky than other systems that don't suffer from that pattern. You fix this by locking relevant regulation to what it was when the reactor was built. New reactors would follow new rules but older reactors would be shielded from changes because it impacts costs dramatically sometimes. Subsidizing reactors that follow new rules is a good compromise. So old reactors follow new rules but you make the situation whole by paying for the cost of new regulation.
3. Smaller new reactors instead of the giant old reactors. They're safer, less conspicuous, and a much smaller investment.
4. The Not In My Back Yard ism (NIMYism) is out of control with nuclear. No one wants to live next to an airport or a water treatment facility, but we need them. If we place it 10 miles away from you, then that should be good enough. Often people complain about reactors that are 400 miles from them. Its fucking stupid.
Naturally none of this is going to happen. The environmental lobby wants to reduce CO2 but doesn't want to use the only technology that will actually do it.
its a giant stupid shit show. Cue lots of ignorant people saying wind and solar. Which is just a vote for natural gas and coal. Which means the CO2 argument is at best inconsistent.
And yes, I know you're angry and about to post about how great wind and solar is and how wrong it is for me to call you ignorant. But what you've probably failed to do is address the natural gas and coal issue. If you can't answer why every solar and wind project has to be backstopped by as much coal and natural gas... and really everything is just an emotional sputter of mindless outrage... it just validates my point.
So seriously, if you think I'm wrong... natural gas and coal... why are they rolled out to back stop the solar and wind?
I got to the LCoE tables and its clearly wrong.
You can cross reference with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The numbers are not similar and the link in the citation is dead. I was skimming the source looking for things to audit to validate the source and... it failed that quick examination. Not saying it doesn't make good points, but its citing 'facts' that aren't facts.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying fusion will or won't happen. I don't know enough about that and technological changes are capable of rendering any prediction as to its economics meaningless.
Consider aluminum. It was once a precious metal. At one time one could conclude that it would never be used as a throw away material in something like soda cans. And yet it is because a new refining process was developed that made production orders of magnitude more efficient.
Dangerous to say never or to presume upon the technology of the future.
Chickens, roosts, sown wind, and wirlwind. ;)
I know I know... you've counted your eggs before they've hatched and gone after the birds in the bush rather than the bird in hand.
Some people just want to live in interesting times.
I thought that is what you meant...
You proved my point, shortstack.
You said this in the post where you said you restated my point:
"To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it.
"It seems pretty clear you have some sort of weird anti-statistics agenda."
That isn't my point. So first sentence didn't meet the standard.
"While statistics is not a perfect science (arguably no science is), properly applied statistics at least shows its work so you can examine it directly."
Second sentence also didn't restate my point.
"If you want to take an anti-statistics stance there is plenty to attack the statistics with, but at least be reasonable enough to point out your qualms instead of just carrying on with this handwaving and dodging."
Third sentence didn't meet the standard.
Hmm, this isn't a good start for you and you only have so many sentences left. Sad.
"Though as was stated earlier, you are entitled to hold your opinion if you want."
Failure.
"It doesn't seem from this thread that you have any interest in learning enough on this topic to influence your opinion to waver, and you have the right to do that if you wish."
Failure
"But claiming that someone should "concede the point" because you aren't willing to read up on the topic is - to put it kindly - not based on sound reasoning."
Okay... so you didn't restate my point to prove that you had actually read what I said even once.
You failing to do this and then citing your failure gives us a fun failure within a failure.
We're done. I gave you lots of chances and all you did with them is whine, prove you never read anything I said, prove you didn't read what you even said, and then use decoy accounts to abuse the mod system.
That's all you did. You're literally the problem with the community and proof as to why the AC system shouldn't even exist. All people like you do with it is troll.
Quote where it was met, I don't think it was there.
As to downmods, you are posting under AC which means you knew you were trolling ME and didn't want your bad behavior to reflect on your main account.
What is more, the downmod system is very vulnerable to sad people that make multiple accounts, as well ideologically biased people, and of course people that just didn't read anything very clearly.
It doesn't mean much. For all I know its all literally just you.
If you think I care about the modding system, then you're mistaken.
Now, if you answered my challenge, quote it. I went through the past posts and saw nothing that approached my challenge.
If you did, then I'll apologize and move forward with the discussion. If you don't, then I'll assume my assessment was accurate and you're likely just lying.
1. You've made it clear you didn't actually read or understand anything I said.
2. As to my exaggeration, I already addressed that.
Being thirsty for a point doesn't mean you have one. ;)
If you don't know what I was talking about or my central argument which was not especially relevant to the exaggeration then you're not really talking about what I was talking about.
Any honest person that addressed this would have to confess that you're arguing in very bad faith.
Now, if you want to stop acting like a degenerate, I'll let bygones be bygone and we'll pick up as before and we can see if you actually even disagree with anything I've said once you've understood my point.
To facilitate that, please actually read my argument again and then paraphrase it here so I know you actually read it at least once.
If you don't do that, then I have to assume you're doubling down on arguing against a point you didn't understand in the first place.
Sure... one guy is going to stop a global push to weaponize AI.
I'd ask if you were serious but either answer would be depressing in its own way.
Just leave it there. Nothing productive here.
To demonstrate you even read my position, please restate it. If after actually reading my point you disagree with it, then I can offer citations. After providing those, I'll expect you to concede the point to me.
Your move.
You can pretend to be 20 people all day. All I see is "AC". Listening to some guy try to elevate his position by pretending to be other people is not going to work.
As to not understanding what a strawman is, I don' think you understand what a strawman is... here is a link to explain it to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."""
Because you clearly have a reading comprehension issue as evidenced by not understanding what I said or he said... I'm going to specific cite the bit of that above quote that you should have read if you were competent at the task:
""while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.""
""not presented by that opponent.""
Now, as I pointed out immediately when I cited strawman... which you missed because you have a reading comprehension issue... I did not suggest or advocate for a patient to be given a random cocktail or be seen by a snake oil salesman etc. I pointed this out above... you missed it because you're probably mostly illiterate.
I know... you're offended. But you have no right to be offended. The point is accurate. There is no justification for you position and issuing the comments you've issued is a damning confession on your own part.
But seriously, what is the point of this argument? There's nothing productive to be had here. I think you're an idiot and you think whatever irrelevance an idiot thinks.
Kindly drool on someone else.
First it isn't bad. The moral argument is comical.
Second the gesture is pointless as it will be developed either way.
Third given the reality of point 1 and 2, there is a better argument for this "gesture" being a moral evil rather than either moral good or even neutral.
its just shallow virtue signalling by nitwits.
An exaggeration in the context of a sound argument is not an invalidation of the entire argument.
You're a thirsty one, aren't you? :-D
google can do it or not... it won't change anything.
its happening. If various corporate cultures want to special snowflake their way out of contracts that just leaves more opportunities for rival organizations.
yawn.
in so far as I can tell you're all the same twit. And no, you didn't rebut me in the post where you strawmanned my position.
You started out by saying my argument was other than what it obviously was and then you took down this fictional argument that I never made.
That is what a strawman is... its invalid.
I said, GOOD DAY, sir.