• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      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.

      • poVoq
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          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.

          • poVoq
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            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

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              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.

              • poVoq
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                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.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  I never claimed to know the answer, I simply pointed out that nuclear isn’t it either.

                  You keep repeating that without any basis I’m aware of. It’s pretty clear that nuclear has different characteristics from renewables that are complimentary to renewables, and can at least in principle fill the role of other energy requirements that renweables cannot. You continue dismissing nuclear without any justification and act as if you’re some kind of authority on the subject when you now admit that you don’t actually have answers.

                  And if you know that don’t have answers then you have absolutely no business arguing against other approaches than the one you are personally invested in. Note that I’m not arguing against renewables, I’m saying that they need to be a part of a bigger picture.

                  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.

                  No, I did not move any goal posts. You started trying to restrict the discussion to electricity production. I have always discussed the total lifecycle of energy production in this conversation and in previous ones. It makes absolutely no logical sense to discuss anything other than the total lifecycle and total energy requirements.

                  And did you even read the OP’s article? It clearly explains that nuclear is by far the most expensive option.

                  Now who’s moving the goal posts here.

                  As for environmental damage: are you seriously disputing the environmental damage of uranium mining & enrichment/recycling and nuclear fallout from inevitable accidents?

                  Yes, I’m seriously disputing that nuclear energy production is any worse than the environmental impact of other methods known to man. The fact that you worry about potential nuclear accidents more than the continous damage done to the environment from use of fossil fuels shows that you’re not serious. The dangers of nuclear energy use have to be seen in perspective of the dangers and damage associated with other technologies. For example, this is a great explanation of nuclear waste trade offs.

                  If renewables are only useful for a small sector of energy production then fossils need to continue to be used for the rest. This means accepting all the environmental damage associated with their use.

                  Those non-electricity nuclear use examples are clearly not economically feasible as otherwise they would be done already.

                  That’s another baseless statement. It’s pretty clear that politics people such as yourself are invested in play just as big a role as economic considerations. So yes, your argument is a laughable as counter-point.

                  • poVoq
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Seriously, not a single sentence in your reply is really related to what I wrote. I don’t even know how to reply to this further. You are either arguing in bad faith or lack basic reading comprehension.