> If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors

--- start quote ---

Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule

Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,

--- end quote ---

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec...

"Data shows the avg. 50MW PV construction project delays cost $2M. The average solar construction project is delayed by about 20% with the consequences hovering around $2M in costs."

https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overrun...

> nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,

Ahem.

Let me fix that quote for you:

"Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,".

ALL OF THEM. Not just nuclear.

You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard.

Nuclear is… just another mega project, just like the rest.

You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense when it's everything including your darling.

> You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard.

Do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say or imply

> You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense

I literally said nothing of the kind

Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse):

You know we can see your comments, right?

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian

And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522

> You know we can see your comments, right?

Yes, I do.

> And you've got a… distinct… writing style

Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is.

So. This is what I actually wrote, and not what you pretend I wrote.

The original statement was this: "If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors"

To which I replied: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average"

Which means only one thing: renewable projects are just as prone to time and buget overruns as nuclear. That is it.

How you imagined what you think I wrote, I cannot even begin to comprehend.

This:

> Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is.

Makes this:

> is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse

A case in point.

I'm not even going to bother now with the rest; the abrasiveness you approach this topic with is uninteresting to me, and does not help me learn new things.

That's also not an ad hominem, by the way; it's a critique, sure, but not even intended as a response to the attempted argument.

So you chose to ignore his points re: the required fossil fuel inputs to create these clean renewable sources?

The world burns that much coal — which is apparently enough to make enough renewables for 50% of global electricity needs — every three months, and we don't, not even accidentally, set fire to wind turbines or solar cells at anything like that rate.