Activist versus nuclear advocate
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I'd love to hear an opinion from the community about this: Alessio, (me) commenting a really good informative video about climate change and energy solutions and a reply from an Nuclear advocate, he's actually a nuclear ingeneer I think.
A: "It is not true that we need nuclear power, this is simply false. The mistake can happen, nothing serious, but in short, let's say that it is not necessary and this has been demonstrated by hundreds of researches regarding 100% Renewable Energies energy systems."
N: "to say that a 100% renewable system is "theoretically" feasible (as reported in the literature) does not mean that nuclear power is not needed."
I'm not going to answer just yet on this one because they are really good at distorting information gaining hundread of thousands of followers recently and I'm not really good at communication to be honest.
But please don't engage on the merit of conversation just focus on logical fallacies and maybe cognitive biases.
He seems accusing me of jumping to conclusions fallacy, but what's happening here in reality? Can we learn something from this?
(just to be clear in the 100%RenewableEnergy system scenarios there is no place for nuclear and fossil fuels even with Carbon Capture and Storage solutions so it seems to me that if 100%RE is possible it means nuclear is not necessary easy peasy)
Comments on Question
Answers
1N is probably biased in favor of nuclear energy due to being a nuclear engineer, but I don't see any fallacies. Just sounds like he's disagreeing with you.
There's a lot of context missing. But, just given what I know, it sounds like he's trying to say that the research you're referring to doesn't account for issues that present themselves when you're working on a full scale power grid.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
To offer some analogies, It's like someone would say:
"The fact that there are research and institutions that support 100% plant-based diets doesn't mean we don't need meat in the table"
or
"The fact that there are low carbon technologies doesn't mean that we shouldn't emit CO2 in the atmosphere"
or
"The fact Joe is using PC 12 hours a day for years doesn't mean he can have problems of technology addiction".
All these example hope can explain the feeling I have reading his argouments.
He is improperly using the jumping to conclusion fallacy attack framework to shut down the conversation.