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.
"Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,".
ALL OF THEM. Not just nuclear.
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.
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
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:
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.
> 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.