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.
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.
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.
I’m not sure how you can possibly claim that my reply is not related to what you wrote. I realize English isn’t your first language, but yu are either arguing in bad faith or lack basic reading comprehension. I’ve literally highlighted the parts of your comment I responded to.
If you can’t make a counterpoint then just stop trolling instead of making a clown of yourself.
Please stop continuously building straw-man arguments, moving goal-posts and changing the topic when someone points out that you are spreading falsehoods.
It seems that no matter how ridiculous your initial position is, you somehow try to mend it into something that at least gives the superficial impression that you are “winning” the argument. Stop lying to yourself, you are convincing no-one other than maybe yourself.
Please take your own advice. I’ve repeatedly explained my argument here and that I have not moved any goal posts. You keep repeating this lie over and over.
You are the one spreading falsehoods and arguing in bad faith. Then when you get caught in your lies you start making personal attacks. You are a troll who is utterly incapable of accepting that other people might have a valid perspective that differs from your own.
You always have to try and get a last word with some snide remark and a personal insult. You waste other people’s time and add nothing to the discussion.
It seems that no matter how ridiculous your initial position is, you somehow try to mend it into something that at least gives the superficial impression that you are “winning” the argument. Stop lying to yourself, you are convincing no-one other than maybe yourself.
This is pure projection on your part. This is precisely what you do and you naturally assume that everyone else is doing it too. Take a long hard look in a mirror sometime.
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.
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.
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.
Now who’s moving the goal posts here.
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.
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.
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
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.
I’m not sure how you can possibly claim that my reply is not related to what you wrote. I realize English isn’t your first language, but yu are either arguing in bad faith or lack basic reading comprehension. I’ve literally highlighted the parts of your comment I responded to.
If you can’t make a counterpoint then just stop trolling instead of making a clown of yourself.
Please stop continuously building straw-man arguments, moving goal-posts and changing the topic when someone points out that you are spreading falsehoods.
It seems that no matter how ridiculous your initial position is, you somehow try to mend it into something that at least gives the superficial impression that you are “winning” the argument. Stop lying to yourself, you are convincing no-one other than maybe yourself.
Please take your own advice. I’ve repeatedly explained my argument here and that I have not moved any goal posts. You keep repeating this lie over and over.
You are the one spreading falsehoods and arguing in bad faith. Then when you get caught in your lies you start making personal attacks. You are a troll who is utterly incapable of accepting that other people might have a valid perspective that differs from your own.
You always have to try and get a last word with some snide remark and a personal insult. You waste other people’s time and add nothing to the discussion.
This is pure projection on your part. This is precisely what you do and you naturally assume that everyone else is doing it too. Take a long hard look in a mirror sometime.