That's his thing. He makes broad to the point of indefensible claims, backs them up with a laundry list of tangentially related links, almost always from the news (and we all know how much the news loves to report "the whole truth"), and then when he gets called out he moves goalposts around muddies the waters and does all sorts of tricks that are SOP when arguing in bad faith. If he were not constantly arguing for viewpoints that more or less correlate with the net average HN user his posts would have been defaulted to dead long ago. I think he believes his own BS so it's debatable whether he is technically arguing in bad faith but it sure fails the duck test.
Would you mind pointing out my indefensible claims or where I moved the goalposts? The Lazard LCOE v15 analysis link I posted at top level of this thread specifically shows that solar paired with storage is cheaper than nuclear on a per kwh basis. My other links demonstrate that base load is unnecessary, and also substantiate that renewables and storage are cheaper than nuclear. Finally, if factcheck.org's conversation with various experts demonstrating that nuclear isn't necessary to decarbonize (and my willingness to put $1000 at stake, to demonstrate I'm arguing in good faith, that no new nuclear will be built successfully in the developed world), what evidence would be valid? I'm always happy to provide citations and references, but you can't discuss a topic in good faith with someone if every citation or reference is rejected as "fake news." Some objective observations and truth must be present and agreed upon.
To be frank, it sounds more like you are disgruntled and are unhappy when the facts presented (as well as the general consensus of the forum, as you mention in the comment I'm replying to) don't align with your belief system. I don't mean to be rude by any means, but I'm unable to come to any other conclusion based on my (imho, polite) interactions with you. I do believe my conclusions based on the data I present. Why would I comment and participate if I didn't? I don't take issue if you choose to not engage, but I'd appreciate if you'd tone down the libel and attacks on my character in a public forum if you choose to not bring facts and argue ideas.
That's his thing. He makes broad to the point of indefensible claims, backs them up with a laundry list of tangentially related links, almost always from the news (and we all know how much the news loves to report "the whole truth"), and then when he gets called out he moves goalposts around muddies the waters and does all sorts of tricks that are SOP when arguing in bad faith. If he were not constantly arguing for viewpoints that more or less correlate with the net average HN user his posts would have been defaulted to dead long ago. I think he believes his own BS so it's debatable whether he is technically arguing in bad faith but it sure fails the duck test.
The only way to win is to not engage.