Maybe I shouldn't step in this but here it goes. My personal opinion is that nuclear isn't good or bad, it's an option that's available. I have never heard a nuclear activist say that nuclear energy is superior to renewables. It's not black and white, it's all a complex mix of demands and limitations that dictate if renewables are better for an area or nuclear. It's a whole lot of gray, but nuclear energy isn't as dangerous as some make it out to be.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

Your comment is valid, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I wouldn't say that nuclear is the best option, nor cleanest, nor safest. Like anything, it's all circumstantial. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes other options are simply better.

From what I've seen, nuclear is the best for base load on a grid scale. Basically: the load that the grid continually has, is well served by nuclear. To my understanding, most nuclear generation is fairly slow to ramp up and down, compared to other technologies, so keeping it at a relatively steady level, with minor adjustments and changes through the day as required, is the best use case for it. It's stable and consistent, which is to say it doesn't vary based on external factors, like the weather, where solar/wind are heavily influenced by external factors.

It's entirely on a case by case basis.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're right, you shouldn't have stepped in. At least,you shouldn't have stepped in and build a strawman. The discussion you entered is about costs, not dangers.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You're wrong, I didn't talk about dangers and I didn't put up a strawman. If you wanted to pin a logical fallacy on my argument you should have said I made a generalization fallacy or an informally fallacy because I was so vague. It's actually pretty telling that you're attributing a lot of intention where there was none. I am not going to spend the time or energy to make a legitimate argument with some random jerk on the internet that ultimately just gets us Internet points. I have more important things to do with my time.

And honestly my only reason for posting is to make the comment number go up one tick to keep these communities going. I really don't care about what you think and unless you're in a position of power no one else does either.

Edit: I'll downvote myself, I don't approve of anyone behaving like either of us.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Your one and only fact-related statement was literally

but nuclear energy isn't as dangerous as some make it out to be.

But sure, you weren't talking about dangers lol.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You're right, I was careless. It wasn't a strawman though. It's still a generalization or informality fallacy. If you're going to head in so hot at least have use the right terms.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago

You argued against an argument I didn't make. That's the definition of a strawman.