Taking someone else’s statements out of context is pretty inexcusible. When someone follows up a statement with another that qualifies the first, they necessarily must be treated as a single unit.
I apologize for taking your statement out of context. It did help to misrepresent your point and I shouldn’t have done that.
You make an ad hominem attack
You mean like you do here against @Medievalist here? This was you, right?
…So you were a nuclear engineer then? Wait, no… peripherally involved…? Hrmm." - “So you’re a software engineer, and you have no real expertise in the fields of nuclear engineering or rocket engineering.”
I think the words, shrill and hypocritical come to mind.
You make an ad hominem attack accusing me of lacking humanity.
Even with your “qualifier” of it being as safe as any conventional power plant can be, your initial sentence that nuclear power is perfectly safe “when done right” doesn’t sit well with me after the recent (and ongoing) Japanese nuclear disaster. It may not have been inhumane for you to have said such a thing, but I do feel it lacks a certain sensitivity towards the dire situation to say the least.
Nonetheless, saying that you are putting your ego and pride above humanity was too over-broad, and I do apologize for that.
You claim wind and solar power inefficiencies do not exist
No, I didn’t. Please don’t continue to be a hypocrite and misrepresent what I’ve said.
There is a measure for this sort of thing (because it’s a vitally important thing to measure) called capacity factor.
I’m very well aware of capacity factors, thanks, and roundly addressed it within this post linked below (with links, etc.). You can educate yourself on the bigger picture, if you’re so inclined:
Nuclear wins with no contest
Wins what with no contest? In the big picture, (see my link above) it doesn’t.
touting growth in French wind energy as some sort of evidence of an inherent unfeasibility of nuclear power.
No, I didn’t. Please don’t continue to be a hypocrite and misrepresent what I’ve said.
I wouldn’t have used France as an example in the first place. As anyone who is educated on the topic knows, nuclear power has been very successful for France. My point is that your blanket statements against more sustainable energy sources are false and I proved it.
Once again, if wind energy is “absurdly inefficient” as you say, then France (who is, once again, decidedly pro-nuclear) wouldn’t be shifting to wind as they are.
That is a prime example that exposes the fallacy of your broad generalizations.
If you want to see more, I’ll point you back to my link above again.
You make another ad hominem attack accusing me of being an ignorant victim of a supposed nebulous “industry campaign” conspiracy.
At least that’s better than being a willing parrot of their talking points.
Nuclear wins with no contest, as the famed Randall Munroe helpfully and humorously demonstrates
Go back and look at that cartoon and look at the fossil fuel comparisons it’s making. There’s no mention of solar, wind, etc., etc.
And, no offense to Randall Munroe (not sure why you even dragged him into this), but a short cartoon is irrelevant in the face of the greater evidence that requires much more complexity to understand.
supposed nebulous “industry campaign” conspiracy
I have to admit that I do find it very strange that you are seemingly able to research things like capacity factors, but you just can’t seem to muster the ability to research things like nuclear industry campaigns (that exacerbate the fossil fuel industry campaigns).
One doesn’t have to simply use an “ecomagination” to find out about very real nuclear industry greenwashing, etc.:
Pandora nuclear industry campaign:
More:
Pandora’s Myths vs. the Facts
A new film about nuclear energy, Pandora’s Promise, which appears in theaters in June and will be broadcast by CNN in the fall, features five “converts” who argue that the dire threat of climate change requires humanity to embrace nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels.
I’m sorry we couldn’t have a more rational discussion about this
Stop using half-truth, blanket statements against sustainable energy while starting off with inflammatory over-the-top pro-nuclear sentences that require weak “qualifiers” to diffuse them and you’ll find things will much improve for you.
