Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 281 posts

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#271

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #270
locallost wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is a difference, that's why somebody posted the estimate (in another comment) that the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. You can call it any way you want, but the question remains. If there is less coal use now than before, and coal was used to replace the reduced n…

> It has to be nuclear, no? No, it can be renewables. > the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. The insurance takes into account huge costs unreasonably added by politicians. This is not what you should look at for a scientifically sound comparison.

There are 100 black, 100 brown and 100 green balls. We take out 50 black and brown balls, and replace them with 100 green balls. But wait, actually the brown balls replaced the black balls because that's the idea I like. But liking has nothing to do with math. Something that decreased needs a replacement, it cannot be a replacement itself, since it was already there.

You don't even understand how insurance works. Added costs or whatever have no influence on the potential payout after an accident would occur. When even something nuclear proponents call benign like Fukushima costs $200B to cleanup imagine how much Chernobyl would cost today. We are easily talking trillions. Insurances are not lobby driven business like nuclear plants, whose main business model is dumping external costs on the public. E.g. nuclear waste, accident cleanup etc.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#272

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #271
fsflover wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has to be nuclear, no? No, it can be renewables. > the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. The insurance takes into account huge costs unreasonably added by politicians. This is not what you should look at for a scientifically sound comparison.

There are 100 black, 100 brown and 100 green balls. We take out 50 black and brown balls, and replace them with 100 green balls. But wait, actually the brown balls replaced the black balls because that's the idea I like. But liking has nothing to do with math. Something that decreased needs a replacement, it cannot be a replacement itself, since it was already there. You don't even understand how insurance works. Add…

The difference from your balls is that different "colors" have real-world, serious consequences. When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls", you effectively endorse the latter ones. This is not just a theoretical thing. Due to this choice, millions and millions of tons of CO2 and a lot of radiation were released into the environment and billions of euro put into the pockets of the coal lobby.

> like nuclear plants, whose main business model is dumping external costs on the public.

Actually, this is even more true for the coal. According to available statistics, coal results in more deaths, more CO2, more damage. I admit that I don't know how the insurance works. Where do all those costs for nuclear insurance come from, while the coal insurance is cheap and more damaging?

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#273

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #272
locallost wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 100 black, 100 brown and 100 green balls. We take out 50 black and brown balls, and replace them with 100 green balls. But wait, actually the brown balls replaced the black balls because that's the idea I like. But liking has nothing to do with math. Something that decreased needs a replacement, it cannot be a replacement itself, since it was already there. You don't even understand how insurance works. Add…

The difference from your balls is that different "colors" have real-world, serious consequences. When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls", you effectively endorse the latter ones. This is not just a theoretical thing. Due to this choice, millions and millions of tons of CO2 and a lot of radiation were released into the environment and billions of euro put into the pockets…

> When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls

Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened to them if they weren't removed? Are you always in disagreement with reality or is this an exception? This is even weirder than the person that claimed a decrease is an increase because it wasn't big enough.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#274

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #273
fsflover wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference from your balls is that different "colors" have real-world, serious consequences. When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls", you effectively endorse the latter ones. This is not just a theoretical thing. Due to this choice, millions and millions of tons of CO2 and a lot of radiation were released into the environment and billions of euro put into the pockets…

> When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened to them if they weren't removed? Are you always in disagreement with reality or is this an exception? This is even weirder than the person that claimed a decrease is an increase because it wasn't big enough.

> Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls.

Ok, maybe you understand it better if I reformulate: When you choose to remove more harmless "balls" and less harmful "balls", it means you support the latter, even if both numbers decreased. How else would you call it if not supporting? Those got money and resources which they should not have obtained.

> Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened to them if they weren't removed?

In this hypothetical case, they would be also be unreasonably supported, even stronger. It's better now than that, but not nearly good enough.

Personal attacks are against HN rules. It's always easy to claim that the opponent is stupid and you are a genius. Try to understand instead (as I do).

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#275

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #274
locallost wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened to them if they weren't removed? Are you always in disagreement with reality or is this an exception? This is even weirder than the person that claimed a decrease is an increase because it wasn't big enough.

> Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. Ok, maybe you understand it better if I reformulate: When you choose to remove more harmless "balls" and less harmful "balls", it means you support the latter, even if both numbers decreased. How else would you call it if not supporting ? Those got money and resources which they should not have obtained. > Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful b…

It's not a personal attack to say it's weird to call removing something, I quote: "not to remove actively harmful "balls"". If calling this weird is against HN rules, I don't want to be here in that case.

This is really only about you googling for stories that coal use in Germany went up, reading half the headline and not realizing it's not saying what you want it to say, and that coal is in fact drastically down. To call yourself understanding in that case is, uh... So now I am faced with a living breathing example of backfire effect, which is potentially annoying, but not really as the bottom line is this: last year renewables almost 300GW of new capacity, nuclear roughly 0GW (I did not actually check the numbers, but am pretty confident it's almost 0 since it almost always is). To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over".

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#276

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #275
fsflover wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. Ok, maybe you understand it better if I reformulate: When you choose to remove more harmless "balls" and less harmful "balls", it means you support the latter, even if both numbers decreased. How else would you call it if not supporting ? Those got money and resources which they should not have obtained. > Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful b…

It's not a personal attack to say it's weird to call removing something, I quote: "not to remove actively harmful "balls"". If calling this weird is against HN rules, I don't want to be here in that case. This is really only about you googling for stories that coal use in Germany went up, reading half the headline and not realizing it's not saying what you want it to say, and that coal is in fact drastically down. To…

> that coal is in fact drastically down

Did I say otherwise? I didn't. I said it's not down enough, even if you think it's down "drastically".

I didn't understand one thing. Do you actually accept or deny that due to not enough decrease of coal the world got a lot unnecessary harmful CO2 and radiatioin, or not?

> To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over".

Maybe in Germany, but not necessarily elsewhere.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#277

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #276
locallost wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a personal attack to say it's weird to call removing something, I quote: "not to remove actively harmful "balls"". If calling this weird is against HN rules, I don't want to be here in that case. This is really only about you googling for stories that coal use in Germany went up, reading half the headline and not realizing it's not saying what you want it to say, and that coal is in fact drastically down. To…

> that coal is in fact drastically down Did I say otherwise? I didn't. I said it's not down enough , even if you think it's down "drastically". I didn't understand one thing. Do you actually accept or deny that due to not enough decrease of coal the world got a lot unnecessary harmful CO2 and radiatioin, or not? > To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over". Maybe in Germany, but not necessarily elsewhere.

> Did I say otherwise? I didn't.

Um, no, you did.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517

"actually it's not even going down"

Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs.

So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down". Am I again breaking HN rules by repeating the contradicting things you keep saying?

New capacity in nuclear worldwide last year was roughly zero. There is around 50GW of in construction nuclear currently that will be finished god knows when and, which is about 1/6 of renewables that got deployed last year without a lot of fuss, being over budget and late. It's very much game over, and poor mental gymnastics you're showing here cannot change that.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#278

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #277
fsflover wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that coal is in fact drastically down Did I say otherwise? I didn't. I said it's not down enough , even if you think it's down "drastically". I didn't understand one thing. Do you actually accept or deny that due to not enough decrease of coal the world got a lot unnecessary harmful CO2 and radiatioin, or not? > To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over". Maybe in Germany, but not necessarily elsewhere.

> Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's not even going down" Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs. So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down…

> Um, no, you did.

>Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding.

I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end. What matters is the choice which harms the health of people and the environment.

It's very sad if you are right about the end of nuclear. I see no reason for that except unscientific fears, and many scientific reports suggest that nuclear is the solution to the climate change.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#279

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #278
locallost wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's not even going down" Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs. So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down…

> Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end…

Right, it doesn't matter, therefore you post the misunderstood link that it went up. Yet another contradiction. Of course it matters, you wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

You see no reason because you generally don't look at facts and numbers, and this is quite clear. Nuclear is stupid expensive and slow, and investing in it is guaranteed to prolong the death of coal. We have neither the time nor the money to deal with it. Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal.

Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. If you don't understand the reasons, try to understand first. The mountain is not coming to Muhammad, so Muhammad will have to go to the mountain. Happy trails.

Re: Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

#280

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #279
fsflover wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end…

Right, it doesn't matter, therefore you post the misunderstood link that it went up. Yet another contradiction. Of course it matters, you wouldn't have posted it otherwise. You see no reason because you generally don't look at facts and numbers, and this is quite clear. Nuclear is stupid expensive and slow, and investing in it is guaranteed to prolong the death of coal. We have neither the time nor the money to deal…

> Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal.

This is just bullshit. Germany is a living proof that removing coal before removing nuclear results in unnecessary damage to the environment and money to coal plant owners: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatic.... I showed you proofs that nuclear energy is a green energy. You didn't provide any links against this point at all.

> Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way.

This is false: https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority aka the Bandwagon Fallacy.

I see that you are also full of bias against nuclear. You also don't have any scientific arguments and just playing with words and trying to find problems in my logic (which do exist, but they don't negate my main point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It's just not interesting to argue with you anymore.

Post reply on HN