Stop artificially restricting the scope of the discussion to make it sound like you have a valid point. Nuclear is not strictly restricted to electricity production. Every time I have a conversation with you, I’m left wondering whether you’re an ignoramus or a liar.
Using ad hominem as a form of argument really underscores the fact that you don’t have any actual point to make. You keep accusing me of spreading falsehoods every time I catch you lying. Really says a lot about you.
You just keep moving goal-posts and mis-defining common concepts to fit your agenda. That is pure bad-faith discussion style. And I challenge you to find even a single instance of me lying, because there is none, so stop spreading falsehoods about me.
What goal posts am I moving here? I said that renewables fall far short from meeting overall energy needs, and there is no basis for claiming that they could. Meanwhile, I provided you with a source explaining that nuclear can in fact be used for energy needs other than electricity production. You literally lied claiming otherwise in this very thread.
You keep trying to artificially restrict the discussion to electricity production while that’s only a small portion of overall energy consumption in Germany. It’s obvious to any rational person that it’s the overall energy production that’s important as opposed to one specific sector of it. There are no credible plans to replace overall fossil fuel usage with renewables in Germany. Trying to focus conversation away from that is dishonest.
You said “there is no viable alternative to nuclear that actually works and can replace fossil fuels at scale”, which is a pure falsehood as nuclear can’t do that either. Nuclear can replace fossil fuels for electricity production and so can renewables (and at a lower cost with less environmental damage).
And when I pointed that out you suddenly moved goal-posts to overall energy use, which is totally besides the point and again nuclear can also not replace that, not even close. Those examples of non-electricity producing nuclear use are laughable and not feasible at scale nor are they actually done anywhere AFAIK. That is like saying solar-power can also be beamed from space. Yes technically it can rolleyes
You said “there is no viable alternative to nuclear that actually works and can replace fossil fuels at scale”, which is a pure falsehood as nuclear can’t do that either.
Please do show me what this alternative is, because I’m not aware of what it is. Also, please elaborate on the claim that nuclear can’t do that either, and what specifically it is you are claiming nuclear cannot do.
Nuclear can replace fossil fuels for electricity production and so can renewables (and at a lower cost with less environmental damage).
Please demonstrate how renewables are doing this with lower cost and less environmental damage. Last I checked, digging up stuff like rare metals for the batteries is causing huge environmental damage. Perhaps, given that it’s being largely done in colonized countries people like you don’t consider this to be environmental damage. Wind turbine blades are just piling up in landfills because they’re not recyclable, and need to be replaced regularly. That’s another example of environmental damage caused in production of renewable tech. Either you are aware of all these things are being dishonest, or you’re being dishonest by omitting the total cost of the lifecycle of renewable tech.
And when I pointed that out you suddenly moved goal-posts to overall energy use
Except that I didn’t move any goal posts. In my original comment I said “there is no viable alternative to nuclear that actually works and can replace fossil fuels at scale”. You are the one who tried to dishonestly restrict the discussion to electricity production here.
Those examples of non-electricity producing nuclear use are laughable and not feasible at scale nor are they actually done anywhere AFAIK.
Oh look, another baseless claim. What specifically makes these uses laughable and not feasible. You have a habit of stating nonsense as fact.
I never claimed to know the answer, I simply pointed out that nuclear isn’t it either.
And yes, you started moving goal-posts as I simply disputed your original statement that nuclear is a viable alternative to overall fossil fuels use.
And did you even read the OP’s article? It clearly explains that nuclear is by far the most expensive option. As for environmental damage: are you seriously disputing the environmental damage of uranium mining & enrichment/recycling and nuclear fallout from inevitable accidents? Nothing in the entire life-cycle of renewables comes even close to that.
Those non-electricity nuclear use examples are clearly not economically feasible as otherwise they would be done already. Please show me even a single non-experimental & non-military use of them. So yes, those examples are laughable as a counter-point.
Stop moving goal-posts all the time. Nuclear is also only producing electricity!
Stop artificially restricting the scope of the discussion to make it sound like you have a valid point. Nuclear is not strictly restricted to electricity production. Every time I have a conversation with you, I’m left wondering whether you’re an ignoramus or a liar.
And every time I argue with you I am strongly reminded of alt-right discussion tactics that do nothing but spread falsehoods and poison the discourse.
Using ad hominem as a form of argument really underscores the fact that you don’t have any actual point to make. You keep accusing me of spreading falsehoods every time I catch you lying. Really says a lot about you.
You just keep moving goal-posts and mis-defining common concepts to fit your agenda. That is pure bad-faith discussion style. And I challenge you to find even a single instance of me lying, because there is none, so stop spreading falsehoods about me.
What goal posts am I moving here? I said that renewables fall far short from meeting overall energy needs, and there is no basis for claiming that they could. Meanwhile, I provided you with a source explaining that nuclear can in fact be used for energy needs other than electricity production. You literally lied claiming otherwise in this very thread.
You keep trying to artificially restrict the discussion to electricity production while that’s only a small portion of overall energy consumption in Germany. It’s obvious to any rational person that it’s the overall energy production that’s important as opposed to one specific sector of it. There are no credible plans to replace overall fossil fuel usage with renewables in Germany. Trying to focus conversation away from that is dishonest.
You said “there is no viable alternative to nuclear that actually works and can replace fossil fuels at scale”, which is a pure falsehood as nuclear can’t do that either. Nuclear can replace fossil fuels for electricity production and so can renewables (and at a lower cost with less environmental damage).
And when I pointed that out you suddenly moved goal-posts to overall energy use, which is totally besides the point and again nuclear can also not replace that, not even close. Those examples of non-electricity producing nuclear use are laughable and not feasible at scale nor are they actually done anywhere AFAIK. That is like saying solar-power can also be beamed from space. Yes technically it can rolleyes
Please do show me what this alternative is, because I’m not aware of what it is. Also, please elaborate on the claim that nuclear can’t do that either, and what specifically it is you are claiming nuclear cannot do.
Please demonstrate how renewables are doing this with lower cost and less environmental damage. Last I checked, digging up stuff like rare metals for the batteries is causing huge environmental damage. Perhaps, given that it’s being largely done in colonized countries people like you don’t consider this to be environmental damage. Wind turbine blades are just piling up in landfills because they’re not recyclable, and need to be replaced regularly. That’s another example of environmental damage caused in production of renewable tech. Either you are aware of all these things are being dishonest, or you’re being dishonest by omitting the total cost of the lifecycle of renewable tech.
Except that I didn’t move any goal posts. In my original comment I said “there is no viable alternative to nuclear that actually works and can replace fossil fuels at scale”. You are the one who tried to dishonestly restrict the discussion to electricity production here.
Oh look, another baseless claim. What specifically makes these uses laughable and not feasible. You have a habit of stating nonsense as fact.
I never claimed to know the answer, I simply pointed out that nuclear isn’t it either.
And yes, you started moving goal-posts as I simply disputed your original statement that nuclear is a viable alternative to overall fossil fuels use.
And did you even read the OP’s article? It clearly explains that nuclear is by far the most expensive option. As for environmental damage: are you seriously disputing the environmental damage of uranium mining & enrichment/recycling and nuclear fallout from inevitable accidents? Nothing in the entire life-cycle of renewables comes even close to that.
Those non-electricity nuclear use examples are clearly not economically feasible as otherwise they would be done already. Please show me even a single non-experimental & non-military use of them. So yes, those examples are laughable as a counter-point.