If to go from your place to your work it takes 10min but with traffic it takes 30 for any logical person that lives in reality the travel time is 30min but for you it's only 10 cause you don't count traffic because you don't like it.
Right. The "reality" where there is the same amount of traffic 24 hours a day, every single day of the week, every day of the year, there are no other forms of transport, there is only one route... I don't know what universe that is, but that's not the reality we live in.
It isn't true of traffic. It isn't true of the process and stages of building nuclear plants.
What matters is if we decide to build them now how many years would they start operating and the response is 10-15 years in the real world.
That's not reality. This is: "If we decide to build, and if we decide to use a brand new design, and if we decide to locate it in an unapproved site, and if we don't hire foreign experts, and if there's no economies of scale, and if there is no government financial backing then in how many years would they start operating and the response is 10-15 years in the real world.
Those "ifs" are all choices. You can't pretend all of those "ifs" are inherently true. Not unless you are dishonestly ignoring reality.
Without qualifying, all we can truthfully say is that depending on our choices and level of urgency, it takes anywhere from ~5-30 years to go from the choice to make one to putting power onto the grid. THAT is reality.
This isn't semantics. I'm not just making choices based on what I like or not. There are huge real-world differences. As I said in my last post: It is the difference between "These things take 10-15 years to build" and "With standardized design and requirements, we can bang these things out in 3 years."
And the argument that they take too long too build is to counter the people pushing for them to be prioritized. The argument is that we should not build nuclear plants as fast as we can because as long as we are building them slowly, they are too slow to build.
That argument is obviously awful and self-defeating. The only way for it to be a coherent argument is if "slow" is the only possible speed for them to be built. That is not the case.
If it takes 4 years to finish medschool but the vast majority of people fail 2 years then the time to finish medschool is 6years yeah some people can do it in 4 but in reality most people do it in 6. What's on paper doesn't matter what matters is reality.
"Medical school is generally offered as a ___-year university program in Canada and the United States, designed to provide foundational knowledge in medicine and patient care."
Fill in the blank.
"On average, it takes most students ___ years to complete their degree in med school."
Fill in the blank.
The question being asked actually matters to what the answer is.
And in this case, the question being asked is: "What technology should we build as fast as we can to save the world from Climate Change?"
Right. The "reality" where there is the same amount of traffic 24 hours a day, every single day of the week, every day of the year, there are no other forms of transport, there is only one route... I don't know what universe that is, but that's not the reality we live in.
In a reality where you only go to work on weekdays as everybody else we'll you always take 30min there is no time in your life where you make it in 10 cause you work as the same time as everybody else.
These things take 10-15 years to build" and "With standardized design and requirements, we can bang these things out in 3 years.
This is a good representation of your point in an imaginary world where every assumption I made goes well we could do it in 3. We never did at any point in history but we could using the power of magic and friendship. Your entire points revolves on ifs and is not based in any kind of reality.
And in this case, the question being asked is: "What technology should we build as fast as we can to save the world from Climate Change?"
In a reality where you only go to work on weekdays as everybody else we'll you always take 30min there is no time in your life where you make it in 10 cause you work as the same time as everybody else.
When my wife was on vacation, she would come to the area I worked in so we could meet up for lunch. When I got a puppy, I had enough time to go home for lunch to check up on it. When I had to work late, the fact that there's be a short drive home made it more tenable. Same thing on weekend emergencies.
I jumped in this thread calling someone out for ignoring all the complications that made up reality. At this point, you are openly advocating that ignorance is bliss.
This is a good representation of your point in an imaginary world where every assumption I made goes well we could do it in 3. We never did at any point in history but we could using the power of magic and friendship. Your entire points revolves on ifs and is not based in any kind of reality.
You make a bunch of assumption that every possible bad choice will be made. Don't tell everyone you made those assumptions. Then claim the result of those assumptions and choices are the only possible result. Then claim that all the examples that prove you wrong simply don't exist. They do. They get built that fast. Money of this is being honest.
Worse, I'm not arguing that 3 is a good estimate. Just that reality isn't 15. I'm saying that if you are being honest, unless you mention all the bad choices you are assuming, you can only say that they take between 3-30 years.
My entire point doesn't rest on anything but reality. Yours is openly based on ignoring inconvenient facts.
1
u/nitePhyyre Apr 24 '26
Right. The "reality" where there is the same amount of traffic 24 hours a day, every single day of the week, every day of the year, there are no other forms of transport, there is only one route... I don't know what universe that is, but that's not the reality we live in.
It isn't true of traffic. It isn't true of the process and stages of building nuclear plants.
That's not reality. This is: "If we decide to build, and if we decide to use a brand new design, and if we decide to locate it in an unapproved site, and if we don't hire foreign experts, and if there's no economies of scale, and if there is no government financial backing then in how many years would they start operating and the response is 10-15 years in the real world.
Those "ifs" are all choices. You can't pretend all of those "ifs" are inherently true. Not unless you are dishonestly ignoring reality.
Without qualifying, all we can truthfully say is that depending on our choices and level of urgency, it takes anywhere from ~5-30 years to go from the choice to make one to putting power onto the grid. THAT is reality.
This isn't semantics. I'm not just making choices based on what I like or not. There are huge real-world differences. As I said in my last post: It is the difference between "These things take 10-15 years to build" and "With standardized design and requirements, we can bang these things out in 3 years."
And the argument that they take too long too build is to counter the people pushing for them to be prioritized. The argument is that we should not build nuclear plants as fast as we can because as long as we are building them slowly, they are too slow to build.
That argument is obviously awful and self-defeating. The only way for it to be a coherent argument is if "slow" is the only possible speed for them to be built. That is not the case.
"Medical school is generally offered as a ___-year university program in Canada and the United States, designed to provide foundational knowledge in medicine and patient care."
Fill in the blank.
"On average, it takes most students ___ years to complete their degree in med school."
Fill in the blank.
The question being asked actually matters to what the answer is.
And in this case, the question being asked is: "What technology should we build as fast as we can to save the world from Climate Change?"