News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors. Parent comment

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by boomboomsubban on Monday October 14, 2024 @04:27PM (#41841582)
>I rarely, if ever, read pro-nuclear saying that they aim to replace oil, coal and gas.

It is almost always implied. It seems so obvious that nuclear should be replacing fossil fuels it doesn't seem worth mentioning. Unless someone says they're aiming for an energy policy of nuclear plus fossil fuels, it's probably safe to say their goal is nuclear and solar/wind/etc.

Even the volcano comment you mention ends with "For energy we obviously need all the options available."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by otherme123 on Monday October 14, 2024 @04:38PM (#41841710)
I can't deduce "implied" when the comments are very, very explicit against solar and wind, not a single word about gas. But somehow I have to read between the lines that they actually meant to criticise fossils.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by boomboomsubban on Monday October 14, 2024 @11:35PM (#41844661)
Do you think everyone pronuclear is a climate change denier? It's so incredibly clear who's the "bad guy" here.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by otherme123 on Saturday October 19, 2024 @09:55AM (#41887793)
No, never said that and never implied that. That's, in fact, a strawman fallacy, distorting my argument badly to attack me.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by boomboomsubban on Monday October 21, 2024 @02:57PM (#41907212)
It wasn't an attack. The idea that it's hard to pick up on pronuclear folks being anti-fossil fuels when the entire debate is about how meet our energy needs in the face of climate change is absurd.
[ Parent | on HN ]