World News

32316 readers

908 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

352

U.S. Pledge To Triple Global Nuclear Energy By 2050 (www.huffpost.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When I first read the titile, I thought that the US is going to have to build A LOT to triple global production. Then it occured to me that the author means the US is pledging to make deals and agreements which enable other countries to build their own. Sometimes I think the US thinks too much of itself and that's also very much part of American branding.

Where are my renewable bros at? Tell me this is bad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don’t want to argue about semantics. If the solution is too costly to be implemented, then it’s not a solution. I don’t think there’s more to be said here.

Yes you do. That's been your argument this entire time. You kicked around all this time till now saying really weird things like how batteries are inefficient or that green hydrogen is from hydrolysis but then tell me what your point is all along when your point has been wrong from the start.

I proposed using 1.7 trillion dollars in funding in my first comment and now you're arguing that I wasn't discussing cost from the start? Is 1.7 trillion dollars not costly to you? Is the project being two times over budget not costly? Is it further not costly that even being twice over budget nearly half are completed? Now is the time you pearl clutch about cost?

You don't engage in pedantry, you engage in belligerence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

That’s been your argument this entire time. You kicked around all this time till now saying really weird things like how batteries are inefficient or that green hydrogen is from hydrolysis but then tell me what your point is all along when your point has been wrong from the start.

Let's keep this simple. It all started with your affirmation that energy storage is a solved problem. When I asked how you would go about implementing the solution, you brought-up pumped hydro. And we ended-up with enough data pointing towards this problem being all but solved (cost is one aspect that you are quick to dismiss, but engineering/practicality is a major one).

In all, we agree, we are in the same boat, we want more budget being allocated for the energy transition. But where we diverge I that I don't see how turning a complex problem into a caricature (bordering a conspiracy theory) helps anyone. The physical world we live in doesn't care about opinions, and isn't affected by digital money. You don't have to believe a random stranger on the internet (who happens to work in this field), if this is your crusade, there should be people near you, academics, scientists, engineers, who would be pleased to educate you on the subject. This is pedant, I don't see where's the belligerence.