> We can illustrate the fundamental nature of this error using a simple example: Let’s assume that a student buys a car and pays it off in monthly installments of € 300. The parents help to fund the student’s car purchase with € 200 per month. If we follow Emblemsvåg’s logic, the car costs € 500 per month.
The same author seems to have realised his error, but not as far as I'm aware admitted it, as he has a newer paper that argues that nuclear would have been cheaper if they used the waste heat from it for a radical desalination plan. Presumably he couldn't get the real numbers to support his pro-nuclear position without adding this strange element to tip the scales.
It's ironic and yet very on brand for someone who mentions IQ in his piece to be relying on some outlier crank for his scientific opinions.
https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/en/blog/2024/kritische-stellun...
> We can illustrate the fundamental nature of this error using a simple example: Let’s assume that a student buys a car and pays it off in monthly installments of € 300. The parents help to fund the student’s car purchase with € 200 per month. If we follow Emblemsvåg’s logic, the car costs € 500 per month.
The same author seems to have realised his error, but not as far as I'm aware admitted it, as he has a newer paper that argues that nuclear would have been cheaper if they used the waste heat from it for a radical desalination plan. Presumably he couldn't get the real numbers to support his pro-nuclear position without adding this strange element to tip the scales.
It's ironic and yet very on brand for someone who mentions IQ in his piece to be relying on some outlier crank for his scientific opinions.