Forward our Bright and Atomic Future!

[Kuciwalker]

So what?

So the cost of keeping resources in reserve to clean up the expected number of catastrophic meltdowns over the next century could be enough to make nuclear economically unattractive compared to alternative energy sources. Duh?

[Ramo]

I'll take the questionable externality of the risk of a meltdown over a more realistic externality of increased ghg emissions. And presumably much lower subsidies would be needed after a carbon credit/tax scheme is passed in a couple years.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
And as for your dumb fallacy argument:

I said I prefer my money going to nukes over ethanol. I did not say that I though that was an either-or proposition.

When you are positioning nuclear as an alternative to ethanol, yes you do.

My money goes both places, and will continue to do so. I am happy about the nuke money, not about the ethanol money.

That's not what you said.

If I could get the government to spend all the money it spends on ethanol on nukes instead, great.

That is, of course, quite silly, since you have no idea whether that's too much money. Of course, you've already mentioned that you support any arbitrarily large allocation of money towards nuclear power, so...

But I know that simple statements like that are hard for you to decifer.

If you don't want people to make simple rational inferences about your views (this has been a common thread in arguments with you*), you can't complain when you have to spell things out

* OTOH if, as I suspect, you simply use "I didn't say that explicitly" as a cop-out when your arguments are refuted, you can do whatever you like as you've already sacrificed your intellectual integrity

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'll take the questionable externality of the risk of a meltdown

It's not questionable, just unknown. Unless you, like Blake, think that the possibility is currently 0%.

over a more realistic externality of increased ghg emissions. And presumably much lower subsidies would be needed after a carbon credit/tax scheme is passed in a couple years.

You think the externality of GHG emissions is somehow more certain than nuclare meltdowns*? At least we've seen a catastrophic meltdown occur, and the potential damage is probably much easier to quantify than for any climate change scenario.

* I'm not claiming climate change et. al. doesn't exist or anything like that (don't even want to go there in this thread), just pointing out that it's far more questionable than the observed phenomenon of meltdowns

[GePap]

Ah, Kuci, Kuci, Kuci, there you go trying to argue against what you think I said, not what I said. Remember how that went last time? Oh, I rember, you were wrong.

I said I prefer my tax dollars going there than to ethanol.

Its a very simple sentence. It certainly expresses my preference of money going one place than to the other, just like I said.

I see a distincts lack of the word "rather."

[Ramo]

Questionable meaning a small probability that nuclear meltdowns (with well-regulated plants) are going to cause more damage than predicted climate change will. Obviously I can't say this with any certainty, but it certainly seems intuitive.

[Jon Miller]

Have there been any nuclear meltdowns of well regulated plants? I include the outdated plants of 30+ years ago. From what I read current plants are much much safer.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Ah, Kuci, Kuci, Kuci, there you go trying to argue against what you think I said, not what I said. Remember how that went last time? Oh, I rember, you were wrong.

See my comment on intellectual integrity

I see a distincts lack of the word "rather."

So do I, neither of has used it. A curious observation, though I don't see the point. Are you somehow suggesting that only use of the word "rather" could have indicated a dichotomy?

[Ramo]

Yep, that's my sense. I mean you've got places like France that get the vast majority of their power from nuclear. Expected meltdown costs seem to be pretty low.

[GePap]

Even Chernobyls' long term effects do not match the possible effects that sustained climate change.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Questionable meaning a small probability that nuclear meltdowns (with well-regulated plants) are going to cause more damage than predicted climate change will. Obviously I can't say this with any certainty, but it certainly seems intuitive.

I suggest that it's impossible to quantify the economic damage of even a single GW scenario with any reasonable accuracy, let alone quantify the economic damage from all of the likely ones and correctly weight the mixed average.

edit: accuracy should be precision

[Ramo]

What constitutes reasonable accuracy? I really think there's going to be many orders of magnitude difference in expected costs, so accuracy doesn't particularly matter...

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway, I don't think the costs of insurance for nuclear would necessarily be large at all, but we ought to see what the market decides. There's no good reason not to require nuclear power suppliers to purchase insurance; if we want to subsidize them, we should do it openly, to a known dollar amount.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
What constitutes reasonable accuracy? I really think there's going to be many orders of magnitude difference in expected costs, so accuracy doesn't particularly matter...

That was my point. When you can't pin the potential damage within even several orders of magnitude, it's difficult to do any sort of reasoning about the costs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

See my comment on intellectual integrity

You talking about intellectual integrity is like a hoar talking about chastity

I have no need to argue against what you think or claim I said. A person with intellectual integrity would argue against what someone else says, not what you claim they said.

So do I, neither of has used it. A curious observation, though I don't see the point. Are you somehow suggesting that only use of the word "rather" could have indicated a dichotomy?

A dichotomy requires contradictory, mutually exclusive, or opposing points.

Saying that I prefer my money going to nukes than to ethanol does not establish some contradictory issue.

My money goes both places. I like it going one place more than the other. That is not a contradiction, those things aren;t mutually exclusive, nor are they opposed. Therefore there can;t be a dichotomy.

Maybe I should have added "more" to make it clearer, but its your imagination creating some dichotomy were one was not stated.