I'm not working in solar and wind. Some of my colleagues are writing reports that recommend more nuclear in some cases, and less nuclear in other cases (I say "some of my colleagues" because I'm not personally working on generation, even if I sometimes peer-review their work).
It is very telling that your first thoughts was "if someone says that in the sector, it's not what they say, then, surely this person is wrong somehow". It shows the level of bias.
As for Jancovici, I find him very disappointing on solar. In one hand, he says very interesting things on economics and history. On the other hand, my colleagues and I are just looking each other with total surprise when he talk about solar: it looks like he never worked on the subject (but he did). In fact, few decades ago, he was saying that solar has no future, with predictions that are factually BS, proven by the fact that what he predicted never happened (and not because of a fluke, just because it was unrealistic). It feels like he chose a side and got emotionally invested in it, and now he just denies the reality. He may have been confronted to intellectually dishonest people, and now each time there is just neutral facts, he may be systematically concluding that it is impossible for it to not be something from intellectually dishonest people. It's a bit sad, I'm not sure if he is doing more good than bad: he is informing people on some aspect, but he is also spreading a lot of harmful stereotype (for example, in some places, solar is really an essential element for decarbonisation, there is just no other way that is not mathematically absurd, but these conclusions are labelled "ideological" by people having done zero study, "because Jancovici said that only ideological people promotes solar"). Just to be clear: my colleagues and I are paid the same (or even more if we have to be paid again for another study when they choose a bad option), but I just feel it's not good for society that there is so little rationality.
> It is very telling that your first thoughts was "if someone says that in the sector, it's not what they say, then, surely this person is wrong somehow". It shows the level of bias.
I said that I would expect someone working in the sector to believe in the sector. I did not say AT ALL that someone working in the sector is surely wrong.
Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. That's how it works. Asking who is saying what and consider they may have a bias seems reasonable to me.
> "because Jancovici said that only ideological people promotes solar"
I have been following him for years, and that is not AT ALL what I understood. He never says "solar is completely useless". He says "it depends on the situation, but it won't scale to replace fossil fuels". He also says that in many situations nuclear is a better fit (because if you have enough nuclear energy, then you don't need renewables, but when you have renewables, you need a solution for the times where they don't produce enough).
I am absolutely certain that renewables are good in many situations. I just say that people selling solar farms have an interest in believing that solar farms will replace fossil fuels. But they won't.
> I said that I would expect someone working in the sector to believe in the sector. I did not say AT ALL that someone working in the sector is surely wrong.
No, you said that you expect someone saying that solar and wind is not that bad to be working IN SOLAR AND WIND and not in nuclear.
You said that my view on solar and wind is biased because I work on solar and wind. I don't, I work on the full energy sector, I don't prefer renewables to nuclear.
> Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. That's how it works. Asking who is saying what and consider they may have a bias seems reasonable to me.
That's exactly my point: you ASSUMED that if I say renewable is good, then I HAVE TO be in renewable.
Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain. But you did not, it was just obvious in your mind: if I'm saying the renewables are not bad, then there is no way I'm intellectually honest and unbiased.
> I have been following him for years, and that is not AT ALL what I understood.
I have worked on projects where we saw DIRECT AFFIRMATIONS from Jancovici that were, for real, just BS. Not because we were interpreting them badly or something like that, it was very clear cut, such as "we've just done the math for your exact project and we guarantee you you will not get it for less than X euros" and few months later, we got it for 0.001 X euros. You may understand superficially what Jancovici says. But obviously, I've seen, from first hand, the reality, and it will be very difficult for you to convince me that what I've experienced was a dream. Each time he is saying "nuclear is a better fit", you need to be very prudent, he is always comparing the very very worst case scenario for renewables with the unrealistically ideal case for nuclear.
> (because if you have enough nuclear energy, then you don't need renewables, but when you have renewables, you need a solution for the times where they don't produce enough)
That only is stupid. You cannot place "just nuclear", the way they work is just not suited for flexible grid, which is essential if we want to reduce emissions. You can somehow follow the demand, but you will spend order of magnitude more money than if you use renewables for exactly the same result, and you will never reach the needed reduction in time.
You were saying that you reacted to "silver bullet, if you have enough renewables then you don't need nuclear". And there, you are doing exactly the same thing by saying that "if you have enough nuclear, then you don't need renewables". Let be clear: I know you prefer a mixed solution. The problem is that you believe that if you have enough nuclear, then you don't need renewables, which is just not correct.
> No, you said that you expect someone saying that solar and wind is not that bad to be working IN SOLAR AND WIND
> you ASSUMED that if I say renewable is good, then I HAVE TO be in renewable.
Wow. Let me quote what I said:
"I would assume that people working in solar and wind believe in it... could it be a bubble?"
If you can draw the above conclusions from this sentence, then there is no need to talk further. And I have to assume that you apply the same kind of logic to everything. No wonder you think Jancovici is wrong.
Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubble.
I still don't understand how you can assume I'm not myself in a bubble, say that I see people considering renewables as a very valid solution, and still this observation is a result of a bubble (a bubble I'm not in, but still I only see things inside of the bubble and not out of it).
Can you see my situation? You have to admit that my reaction is just legitimate.
> If you can draw the above conclusions from this sentence, then there is no need to talk further. And I have to assume that you apply the same kind of logic to everything. No wonder you think Jancovici is wrong.
How convenient. I think Jancovici is wrong about solar (not about everything) because I saw him saying things that are factually wrong, not because he said "bubble", "people" or "it" and that I have misinterpreted that. Firstly, even if I am somehow unable to understand your sentence (which I'm not), I don't need this skill to notice that the numbers we are obtaining are dramatically not the same as the numbers the guy provided. It's like saying "you don't understand Italian language, so I don't believe you when you say that this mathematical development has a sign error in it". Secondly, even if I'm myself an idiot, then you still need to explain why all of my colleagues (including the ones enthusiastic about nuclear development) are also very perplexed regarding Jancovici conclusions on solar.
This whole discussion does not help my impression that there is a lot of irrationality and deny. It really feels you are jumping on an excuse to exclude the possibility that Jancovici may not be right. Again, it fits very well with my first interpretation that you jumped to conclusion that I may be myself in a bubble just because I was saying things that you don't want to hear.
> Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubble.
No no no no no! Try to read it slowly. You wrote:
"I'm working in the energy sector and I see that solar and wind are considered as a very valid solution."
And I answered, quoting exactly the line above:
"I would assume that people working in solar and wind believe in it... could it be a bubble?"
I was NOT saying that you worked in solar and wind, and I was NOT saying that it was a bubble. I was saying that it would seem reasonable to me that people working in renewables would indeed see it as a very valid solution. And given that you work in the energy sector, I was merely asking whether it could be the case that the people around you consider solar and wind as a very valid solution just because they believe in it (e.g. because they work with solar and wind).
Again I did not say "it has to be a bubble", I asked: "given your sector, could it be a bubble?". Then YOU proceeded in looking into other discussions and assuming things about me. Instead, you could just have said "well we don't work in solar and wind and don't benefit from it at all, so I don't see reasons for them to be biased" or "obviously I may be biased because we sell solar panels, but those are researchers and they really seem knowledgeable about it".
Or anything you wanted. Basically you said "I work in the energy sector" as if it mattered (and it could, I don't know), and this was my way of asking you to elaborate. Instead you proceeded in attacking me. So here is my answer: from where I stand, you are not able to draw correct logical conclusions from what you read. Seriously, how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)? That's insane.
So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because, I quote, "people around you" "they work with solar and wind".
How can I be outside of the bubble if the people around me are all in the bubble.
If I'm outside of the bubble, I will see people who work in solar and wind AND people who work in nuclear. And according to you, people in nuclear will not act like people in solar and wind, so the overall observation would not be that I see that solar and wind is considered as a very valid solution, because I will see people saying it's not a valid solution.
You even say:
> given your sector, could it be a bubble?
And you also say, I quote again
> Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work.
So, how does it work? How is that possible that, according to you now, you are not assuming that I'm working in solar and wind and not in nuclear, and at the same time, assuming that I cannot work in nuclear because, then, I will see people saying that solar and wind is not a very valid solution?
As for what I've said next, it's the pot calling the kettle black: even right now, you need a tortuous gymnastic to twist your words so we may slightly imagine a version in which you did not assume anything about me. As for what I've imagined, the rest of the discussion just make me think I was 100% right.
> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)?
Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that.
1) you say people working in wind and solar may be biased and think of it as a very valid solution
2) you say people working in nuclear may be biased and think of it as very not a valid solution
3) THE ONLY LOGIC POSSIBILITY FOR ME TO SAY I ONLY SEE IT BEING CONSIDERED AS A VERY VALID SOLUTION IS THAT I ONLY SEE PEOPLE WORKING IN WIND AND SOLAR.
There is absolutely no other logical solution.
(oh, and you would notice that I did not say "I see some people considering it as a very valid solution", which means I would also see others not considering it as a very valid solution. I'm saying it's a broad consensus to the point that this solution is very generally taken seriously. If you think I was saying "I see _some_ people", who is unable to read what the other has written?)
Oh come on, it has to be a joke. You just don't understand anything, do you? I would ask if you are an LLM, but my experience with LLMs is that they understand natural languages better.
> So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because
Last time: I asked if what you described (i.e. a large consensus for an idea) could be a bubble. I A-S-K-E-D. That's what the question mark means (this is a question mark: "?").
>> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble"
> Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that.
You and I seem to have a very different view of what the word "logic" means.
My point is that your question existed because you gave credit to an hypothesis. You gave credit to the idea that I'm in a bubble. You were happy to consider that and to even ask.
You lecture me (badly) on "what I should have written". Well, there are tons of things that you could have written. I've even said it before, I quote:
> Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain.
But you did not, you just "asked innocently" a question that only someone with an idea already in mind would ask.
> I A-S-K-E-D
What if I tell you "how old are you?" (and I will: "you're so stupid you could be a LLM" ... seriously? how old are you?).
Does it mean that I did not assume anything about you? After all, I've just asked a question, it's the proof I'm not biased towards a specific hypothesis, no? Surely, by your own logic, asking "how old are you" is not implying that I consider you not very sophisticated, you should understand "maybe they think I'm young, but maybe they think I'm old and wise, they don't assume anything, as proven by the fact that they are asking a question".
You could have said "people in nuclear will down-play the importance on renewables, you are saying that around you, renewables are considered as a very valid solution, but are you sure renewables are not in fact a very very valid solution, because maybe you are in a bubble dominated by people working in nuclear". Why not having asked that?
You can even take more extreme examples where a person asked a foreigner person if their parents are apes, or bankers/moneylenders, or jihadists? If this person is asking an arab-looking person, why this person is, what a chance, asking if their parents are jihadists but not if their parents are bankers or part of the mafia? Do you really think the person is not assuming anything? After all, this person asked the question, so it's the proof they don't assume, right?
You see, language is a tad more complex than just LLM and out-of-context word-by-word interpretation, and apparently, I understand that. I don't know (and don't care) about LLM, but, you, you certainly don't.
Natural languages are ambiguous indeed. But it does not mean that you can pick any interpretation you like and "demonstrate" anything you want from it.
I won't address the rest, it makes no sense to me.
And you cannot pick an interpretation of what you've said and "demonstrate" that my interpretation was not legitimate just because you don't like it.
You cannot say "how old are you" and then scream and cry that someone has interpreted that as a normal person will do.
And I have provided all the elements that justify (even if there is a question mark, I know, amazing!) why I've interpreted the way I've interpreted. And these elements makes sense (and I know you will say "naa-ha they don't", the same way you have used logic similar to "if you don't agree with Jancovici, the only possibility is that you are an idiot").
You were lecturing me on what I should have written. But somehow, if indeed you did assume absolutely nothing, you expressed yourself incredibly badly, in a very unnatural way for someone who don't assume anything. But again, I guess you are allowed to lecture me and you are the good guy for doing so, but I should give you all the benefice of the doubt and forgive all of your bad writing, otherwise, I'm the bad guy.
And I know, you are going to say "naa-ah, it was not badly written". But it cuts both way, if I cannot say what interpretations are valid and are not valid, why do you think you can?
And all of this discussion does not change the fact that you are ignorant on the subject of energy generation, only come up with naive and cliché arguments, and that you focused the discussion on small elements rather than answer for all of the other aspects where indeed you cannot really answer.
It is very telling that your first thoughts was "if someone says that in the sector, it's not what they say, then, surely this person is wrong somehow". It shows the level of bias.
As for Jancovici, I find him very disappointing on solar. In one hand, he says very interesting things on economics and history. On the other hand, my colleagues and I are just looking each other with total surprise when he talk about solar: it looks like he never worked on the subject (but he did). In fact, few decades ago, he was saying that solar has no future, with predictions that are factually BS, proven by the fact that what he predicted never happened (and not because of a fluke, just because it was unrealistic). It feels like he chose a side and got emotionally invested in it, and now he just denies the reality. He may have been confronted to intellectually dishonest people, and now each time there is just neutral facts, he may be systematically concluding that it is impossible for it to not be something from intellectually dishonest people. It's a bit sad, I'm not sure if he is doing more good than bad: he is informing people on some aspect, but he is also spreading a lot of harmful stereotype (for example, in some places, solar is really an essential element for decarbonisation, there is just no other way that is not mathematically absurd, but these conclusions are labelled "ideological" by people having done zero study, "because Jancovici said that only ideological people promotes solar"). Just to be clear: my colleagues and I are paid the same (or even more if we have to be paid again for another study when they choose a bad option), but I just feel it's not good for society that there is so little rationality.