[13thLetter]

"Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly."

The article makes the point that one small country which has invested extensively in the technology was able to fill its electricity generation needs on one specific day. Now, I'm not going to minimize that -- it's an impressive demonstration of what wind power can do under optimum conditions. But it says absolutely nothing about the practical replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear worldwide, including in nations that aren't nearly as well situated to take advantage of wind energy as Denmark, or which aren't wealthy enough to build and subsidize expensive wind infrastructure.

"And, like I said, I'll be convinced of nuclear power's true safety as soon as the industry puts its money where its mouth is and the liability cap becomes history. After all, if it were as riskless as they tell us it is, they would be happy to see it go. Right?"

Why would any industry, no matter how safe, turn down a government-provided liability cap? If the government was willing to put a liability cap on Nerf guns, I guarantee you that Hasbro would happily go along with it, and most likely fight to keep it once in place.

[crdoconnor]

>But it says absolutely nothing about the practical replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear worldwide, including in nations that aren't nearly as well situated to take advantage of wind energy as Denmark, or which aren't wealthy enough to build and subsidize expensive wind infrastructure.

Wind energy is the cheapest form of energy:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-powe...

If you think poorer countries that are too poor to build wind turbines or put up solar panels are instead going to take advantage of nuclear power you are smoking some pretty radioactive shit. The CapEx on a nuclear plant is staggering.

Cheap Chinese solar panels are getting extremely popular in the 3rd world as of the last 18 months, incidentally. Because the capex on a solar panel starts at around $200.

>Why would any industry, no matter how safe, turn down a government-provided liability cap?

They just have to say that it isn't necessary and that it can be taken away. I'm sure the environmental lobby and a few senators looking to score some points with their constituents can take care of the rest.

They are not willing to put their money where their mouth is but you are still willing to believe their protests at how safe their plants are, though. What does that say?

>If the government was willing to put a liability cap on Nerf guns

Except the government didn't put a liability cap on Nerf Guns and Hasbro didn't ask for one.

[13thLetter]

I'm sorry, but you're still missing the point. Yes, the nuclear industry could say to the government, "Please take away this policy that protects our industry." But the nuclear industry will not say that to the government, because the nuclear industry is made up of modern twenty-first century human beings who will happily rake in whatever government benefits are being offered and fight like demons to keep them from being taken away. You cannot make any conclusions about nuclear power's safety or lack thereof based on this.

May I suggest if you want to convince a group of grounded, knowledgeable, and technically minded people that nuclear power is unsafe, you're going to have to go with facts and figures, not "put your money where your mouth is."

[crdoconnor]

>I'm sorry, but you're still missing the point. Yes, the nuclear industry could say to the government, "Please take away this policy that protects our industry."

Right, because if it's as safe as they and you say it is then it is absolutely not needed.

This would be a very clear signal of the faith that they have in the safety of their own investments.

> the nuclear industry is made up of modern twenty-first century human beings who will happily rake in whatever government benefits

According to you it is not a benefit, so they really shouldn't be all that concerned about keeping it.

But they are.

>May I suggest if you want to convince a group of grounded, knowledgeable, and technically minded people

In other words you think I should believe you, random internet stranger, over the nuclear industry's own self assessments of the danger posed by their plants.

[peteretep]

    > Right, because if it's as safe as they and you say it 
    > is then it is absolutely not needed.

Their shareholders will sue the shit out of them if they give up free money. I can't work out if you're being disingenuous or if you genuinely can't understand why companies don't give up free money.

[13thLetter]

"According to you it is not a benefit, so they really shouldn't be all that concerned about keeping it."

What are you talking about? Of course it's a benefit. I just said that in the exact line you quoted.

"In other words you think I should believe you, random internet stranger, over the nuclear industry's own self assessments of the danger posed by their plants."

No, I think that if you're going to assert that nuclear power is not safe you should back it up directly with information about... oh, say... how many fatalities it causes in comparison to other generation methods, instead of convoluted backwards arguments about liability caps. Since you seem disinclined to do that, I think we're done here.