bayesian_horse

16 ms·

1.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
I just tried deleting my account. Which isn't possible, counter to best practice and even many data privacy laws (not in california I guess). But I'm logging out and using a new account from now on (if at all). Congratulations.
2.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
No more dissent. Got it. I would encourage a ban. I will just make another account. I get that I should reduce some of the "flame war" stuff but I think this is one-sided.
3.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Bullshit argument. How would such a cleanup even work? The claim that the Fukushima clean up is excessive is completely pulled out of someones ass. What would be the rationale? You DO understand that exposure to radiation is cumulative, and
4.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
The Chinese ramp up in nuclear power is fairly decent. Give them time. Unfortunately I don't think they will have more luck in terms of safety, rather the opposite... The Fukushima incident was a result of regulations being too weak or
5.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
And most of them are not a commercial reality or viable option for at least a decade or so...
6.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
The group-think around nuclear power on HN is indistinguishable from religious fervor and doesn't agree with average public opinions in any countries I know of. Certainly not Germany...
7.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
That "minor nuclear incident" required a clean up that still isn't finished and already ran up a tab of about a trillion Dollars. Pro-nuclear propaganda tries to focus on "only" one direct fatality, and conveniently
8.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
"Flexible generation" also means coal and gas... So it is not an elusive technology. Neither are hydro power plants which can be varied in their output.
9.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Nuclear power projects are not just over-budget, they start off with a budget of a couple of billions, whereas individual solar or wind power projects are way smaller and therefor carry less of a risk. Nuclear power requires a huge financia
10.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
To be in favor of nuclear power you need to ignore the fat tail risk structure. And nuclear power proponents are using plenty of lies. Like the one where the only alternative to nuclear power is coal power. What you claim to be "realit
11.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Once you do any of the sort, nuclear power loses the rest of its cost advantage (if there is any to begin with).
12.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Most dams carry way more risk and way higher benefits.
13.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Because nuclear power projects are never finished on time and within budget. Partly for political reasons (as in: People really don't like it), partly because engineers suck at estimating large projects.
14.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Bullshit. Germany is still a decade or two away from needing energy storage to even out renewable power peaks. Until then, all the capacity provided by renewable sources reduces the overall emissions, which is the reason we are doing this a
15.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Of course running below maximum output drives up cost. Are you disagreeing with basic math? Consumption of fuel is not the main cost of a nuclear power plant, and even if you shut it down completely, it still needs external power for the c
16.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
How is it immaterial to build twice as many nuclear power plants as necessary instead of using energy storage? You'd have to believe battery storage is way more expensive than an idle nuclear plant. But that's just not the case. T
17.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
You can't prove a long term trend via short term observation. That's kindergarden level...
18.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
My point is actually that the risk of coal is calculable and the risk of nuclear is not. And if you provide any estimate, it is most certainly wrong, because it is based on false and dangerous assumptions. Yet you repeat the lie that coal p
19.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
I don't believe people are special.
20.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
You're still lying about the alternatives to nuclear power. You are still underestimating the impact of a nuclear disaster. You are still underestimating the risk of a nuclear disaster. These things have always occurred more frequently
21.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Those voices just weren't there and it is plenty easy and convenient to say "I was concerned way before everybody else knew of the problem."
22.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Your arguments are fueled by a lack of understanding. Ramping down renewables is lots faster and easier. The stability argument is just populistic bullshit. Plausible on the surface, not a concern in actual practice. You are acting like tho
23.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
In practice you don't. Nobody wants to transition to renewables over night. And so far it works quite well.
24.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
You don't get the fact that nuclear power requires just as much storage, right France has this problem in a hidden way: They have to import power in the summer, because they DONT have that peak capacity, nuclear or otherwise. To provid
25.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
That's not how it works. I don't know the actual numbers, but what if peak load is 50% higher than average load? You need quite a lot of battery storage to make that work, especially if the peak load lasts longer than a few minute
26.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
You still don't understand. A coal power plant that doesn't run doesn't produce harmful emissions. And at lower capacity they produce less emissions, proportionately. And you are still lying about coal being the only replacem
27.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Which isn't what you and others said at the time, I'd guess. Hardly anyone was advocating for this. None of the major parties for certain. Nobody wanted more expensive energy.
28.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
You are still assuming that the only alternative to nuclear power is coal power. That right there is a big fat lie and makes all your arguments worthless.
29.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
I'd like to see some sources for the claim that this death toll is so much higher - on a per kW basis. And even that assumes that scaling up the number of nuclear plants scales the risk up linearly, which is probably impossible because
30.
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
Those coal plants aren't operating at peak capacity, or at all, in some case. The suggestion they are replacing nuclear power 1:1 is a highly convenient lie. The idea that coal power is less safe is bullshit. Nuclear power carries tail

More ›