6 ms·

You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there

You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there is no way to use coal in a cleaner way. I leave the judgement up to you, just wanted to point out some confirmation bias in your convictions.

simonh 11y ago
> ...You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power... There is no such assumption in that post. It's just a comparison of the the content of the article to a relevant example from personal experience.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there is no way to use coal in a cleaner way. I suppose the GP is implicitly taking into the account following facts: - there are no other energy sources that are a) green, and b) can scale up fast enough to replace fossil fuels for base load; - we're running out of fossil fuels; - there is no "option to use less energy", not under capitalism and probably not even within human nauture - that is, unless you're suddenly capable of solving coordination problems on a global scale (i.e. you're a god). It's really frustrating. We have a very good way to generate tons of energy, that's clean, safe and scalable, and we're not using it because people's perceptions of safety and danger are completely backwards (and politicians listen to that).
- facepalm 11y ago
  Of course there is the option to use less energy. That's just silly. If you are an American, go to any other country to learn how to get by with less energy (ie smaller houses that require less heating, smaller cars that use less fuel, less commuting to begin with, smaller fridges,...).
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    In theory, there is such an option. In practice, no one will take it, because why should they? It's both a coordination problem and a short/long-term values problem. How do you convince an average Joe to reduce his quality of life now in order to secure some abstract better future later; a future, that will come to pass if and only if every other average Joe and Jane does the same? You can't, unless you're a god. And that point itself is irrelevant anyway. I too recommend watching that TED video[0] 'pdkl95 linked. The first world can try and reduce their energy consumption all they want, while there's the remaining 2/3 of the population that is industrializing itself right now, who will need more energy for things like transportation and healthcare and washing machines and food production and entertainment, and that need will offset whatever we can save. And while we the first worlders have privilege of worrying about climate change - after a hot meal and a hot shower, dressed up in clean clothes that were washed and dried by machines - most of the world won't care. They want their hot food and hot showers and washing machines now, to have time to go to school and to read books to their children. They will seek power sources they can get. All this makes current anti-nuclear advocacy outright dangerous to survival of technological civilization[1]. We should be pushing nuclear for baseline and renewables on top for peak loads, and slowly phasing-out coal altogether (and maybe pouring some more money into fusion research as well). We should be doing it right now, gaining more experience with building and maintaining safe nuclear plants, so that maybe developing countries could even skip coal altogether and go straight for nuclear+solar. But instead, we got a lot of people irrationally afraid of nuclear power, thus endangering their own survival. RE going to another country - I live in Poland, so I do have a perspective on how to live on less energy than an average American, though we still use a lot of power here. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing... [1] I initially wanted to write 'mankind', but humans are a resilient species and will no doubt survive even total civilizational collapse. Yes, there will be a world of humans. But it won't be a world any of us would like to live in. I like my pizza, showers, Emacs and an air-conditioned office, thank you very much.
    - facepalm 11y ago
      Presumably then controlling population growth is another way to save energy. I took that "how many earths does your life style require" - the evil half of my brain thought "if my lifestyle requires 1,5 earths, then it would be sustainable with one third less people than we have not"... Afaik China for example is trying to actively manage the population growth/consumption problem, and sometimes they managed to introduce some environment friendly things that took other countries decades (like making filters in car exhausts mandatory, making plastic bags illegal, and so on). Not that China is a model of environmentalism, just saying that it's not a given that third world countries have to take the same route to modern living as US+Europe. As for why would anybody save energy: it doesn't always have to equate less convenience. For example, even if you gave me the biggest possible car, with some magic CO2-neutral power source and what not, I would still not like commuting. So a solution that involves less commuting could both save energy and be more convenient (for example cool new houses could be build that make it more attractive to live in the city - in fact less cars would make living in the city a lot more attractive). In general it seems to me that if "convenience X" involves a lot of energy, it will also involve a lot of nuisance (machines that make noises or need a lot of attention - lots of energy passing through it means likely it will break down sooner). Or better insulating your house could simply be cheaper than paying for the energy to heat it - why wouldn't you then choose to insulate the house? And so on.
pdkl95 11y ago
> the option to use less energy Do you wash your clothes by hand, with water heated from solar? No? Then why are you suggesting that most of the women in the world should continue spending their lives doing such menial activity? This idea that we need to use less energy is one of the most short-sighted examples of western cultural privilege that I've ever seen. The amount of energy the average person has available to utilize for day-to-day needs is one of the best correlations to social progress and freedom. People that don't have to spend their days washing their cloths by hand have spare time to spend on things like getting an education or participating in a democracy. We should be using nuclear power to significantly increase the amount of power people use so the social benefits currently enjoyed by the "west" can reach more areas in the world. https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing... I not joking or exaggerating when I say that if we let the amount of available energy per-person reduce significantly, society will start to revert back to old institutions like feudalism and slavery. Without energy, you don't have the free time to become educated. Without education, we lose institutions that depend on an educated population like democracy. edit: fixed missing word
- facepalm 11y ago
  Most energy is used for heating, transport, and so on. Your washing machine is not under threat. And I did not suggest any of the things you say. It's all in your head, which went on a rampage triggered by the words "save energy". All I said it is an option. I didn't say you have to take it.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    I never said anything about my washing machine. Maybe you should try to watching that talk by Hans Rosling that I linked to. Who are you to say that using less energy is an option, when you have the luxury of heating and energy-expensive transportation, and most of the world doesn't yet have the energy to wash their clothes?
    - anc84 11y ago
InclinedPlane 11y ago
The point you are missing is that these articles create a bias against nuclear power, but by rights there should be a deluge of articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal. But there are not. And the result is that people have developed a fear of nuclear power while having an undeveloped fear of coal power. Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear, certainly, but coal has absolutely replaced some nuclear power around the world. And that's a tragedy because it represents people taking the wrong lessons to heart, being motivated by fear of the unknown, and making choices that lead to more tragedy and death, not less.
- gggmaster 11y ago
  Then what you can do is writing articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal (though I think there's already many), rather than dismissing others' work.
- notahacker 11y ago
  In fairness there's no shortage of articles on climate change calling out fossil fuel burning, and literally nobody advocating coal as the miracle energy source of the future (notwithstanding the fact that plenty of coal plants are being built in rapidly-industrialising countries with scant regard for the environment) I'll grant that perhaps too much of the criticism of coal power links it vaguely to global climate change rather than specifically to the effect of exhaust gases and coal dust on people living downwind of the plant, but I think that obsession with massive future change rather than respiratory diseases and cancers of today is a more general problem in environmental reporting.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    IMO, that has always been the problem with environmental issues. For the past thirty years or so everything has been focused on this massive yet fuzzy future catastrophe rather than the real, specific, less "critical" damage being done now. Thing is, addressing the latter will pretty much address the former as well. Activists insist on framing their message in terms of the former, though, even going so far as to claim focusing on immediate local effects is "missing the big picture".

simonh 11y ago

> ...You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power... There is no such assumption in that post. It's just a comparison of the the content of the article to a relevant example from personal experience.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there is no way to use coal in a cleaner way. I suppose the GP is implicitly taking into the account following facts: - there are no other energy sources that are a) green, and b) can scale up fast enough to replace fossil fuels for base load; - we're running out of fossil fuels; - there is no "option to use less energy", not under capitalism and probably not even within human nauture - that is, unless you're suddenly capable of solving coordination problems on a global scale (i.e. you're a god). It's really frustrating. We have a very good way to generate tons of energy, that's clean, safe and scalable, and we're not using it because people's perceptions of safety and danger are completely backwards (and politicians listen to that).

facepalm 11y ago
Of course there is the option to use less energy. That's just silly. If you are an American, go to any other country to learn how to get by with less energy (ie smaller houses that require less heating, smaller cars that use less fuel, less commuting to begin with, smaller fridges,...).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  In theory, there is such an option. In practice, no one will take it, because why should they? It's both a coordination problem and a short/long-term values problem. How do you convince an average Joe to reduce his quality of life now in order to secure some abstract better future later; a future, that will come to pass if and only if every other average Joe and Jane does the same? You can't, unless you're a god. And that point itself is irrelevant anyway. I too recommend watching that TED video[0] 'pdkl95 linked. The first world can try and reduce their energy consumption all they want, while there's the remaining 2/3 of the population that is industrializing itself right now, who will need more energy for things like transportation and healthcare and washing machines and food production and entertainment, and that need will offset whatever we can save. And while we the first worlders have privilege of worrying about climate change - after a hot meal and a hot shower, dressed up in clean clothes that were washed and dried by machines - most of the world won't care. They want their hot food and hot showers and washing machines now, to have time to go to school and to read books to their children. They will seek power sources they can get. All this makes current anti-nuclear advocacy outright dangerous to survival of technological civilization[1]. We should be pushing nuclear for baseline and renewables on top for peak loads, and slowly phasing-out coal altogether (and maybe pouring some more money into fusion research as well). We should be doing it right now, gaining more experience with building and maintaining safe nuclear plants, so that maybe developing countries could even skip coal altogether and go straight for nuclear+solar. But instead, we got a lot of people irrationally afraid of nuclear power, thus endangering their own survival. RE going to another country - I live in Poland, so I do have a perspective on how to live on less energy than an average American, though we still use a lot of power here. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing... [1] I initially wanted to write 'mankind', but humans are a resilient species and will no doubt survive even total civilizational collapse. Yes, there will be a world of humans. But it won't be a world any of us would like to live in. I like my pizza, showers, Emacs and an air-conditioned office, thank you very much.
  - facepalm 11y ago
    Presumably then controlling population growth is another way to save energy. I took that "how many earths does your life style require" - the evil half of my brain thought "if my lifestyle requires 1,5 earths, then it would be sustainable with one third less people than we have not"... Afaik China for example is trying to actively manage the population growth/consumption problem, and sometimes they managed to introduce some environment friendly things that took other countries decades (like making filters in car exhausts mandatory, making plastic bags illegal, and so on). Not that China is a model of environmentalism, just saying that it's not a given that third world countries have to take the same route to modern living as US+Europe. As for why would anybody save energy: it doesn't always have to equate less convenience. For example, even if you gave me the biggest possible car, with some magic CO2-neutral power source and what not, I would still not like commuting. So a solution that involves less commuting could both save energy and be more convenient (for example cool new houses could be build that make it more attractive to live in the city - in fact less cars would make living in the city a lot more attractive). In general it seems to me that if "convenience X" involves a lot of energy, it will also involve a lot of nuisance (machines that make noises or need a lot of attention - lots of energy passing through it means likely it will break down sooner). Or better insulating your house could simply be cheaper than paying for the energy to heat it - why wouldn't you then choose to insulate the house? And so on.

pdkl95 11y ago

> the option to use less energy Do you wash your clothes by hand, with water heated from solar? No? Then why are you suggesting that most of the women in the world should continue spending their lives doing such menial activity? This idea that we need to use less energy is one of the most short-sighted examples of western cultural privilege that I've ever seen. The amount of energy the average person has available to utilize for day-to-day needs is one of the best correlations to social progress and freedom. People that don't have to spend their days washing their cloths by hand have spare time to spend on things like getting an education or participating in a democracy. We should be using nuclear power to significantly increase the amount of power people use so the social benefits currently enjoyed by the "west" can reach more areas in the world. https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing... I not joking or exaggerating when I say that if we let the amount of available energy per-person reduce significantly, society will start to revert back to old institutions like feudalism and slavery. Without energy, you don't have the free time to become educated. Without education, we lose institutions that depend on an educated population like democracy. edit: fixed missing word

facepalm 11y ago
Most energy is used for heating, transport, and so on. Your washing machine is not under threat. And I did not suggest any of the things you say. It's all in your head, which went on a rampage triggered by the words "save energy". All I said it is an option. I didn't say you have to take it.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  I never said anything about my washing machine. Maybe you should try to watching that talk by Hans Rosling that I linked to. Who are you to say that using less energy is an option, when you have the luxury of heating and energy-expensive transportation, and most of the world doesn't yet have the energy to wash their clothes?
  - anc84 11y ago

InclinedPlane 11y ago

The point you are missing is that these articles create a bias against nuclear power, but by rights there should be a deluge of articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal. But there are not. And the result is that people have developed a fear of nuclear power while having an undeveloped fear of coal power. Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear, certainly, but coal has absolutely replaced some nuclear power around the world. And that's a tragedy because it represents people taking the wrong lessons to heart, being motivated by fear of the unknown, and making choices that lead to more tragedy and death, not less.

gggmaster 11y ago
Then what you can do is writing articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal (though I think there's already many), rather than dismissing others' work.
notahacker 11y ago
In fairness there's no shortage of articles on climate change calling out fossil fuel burning, and literally nobody advocating coal as the miracle energy source of the future (notwithstanding the fact that plenty of coal plants are being built in rapidly-industrialising countries with scant regard for the environment) I'll grant that perhaps too much of the criticism of coal power links it vaguely to global climate change rather than specifically to the effect of exhaust gases and coal dust on people living downwind of the plant, but I think that obsession with massive future change rather than respiratory diseases and cancers of today is a more general problem in environmental reporting.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  IMO, that has always been the problem with environmental issues. For the past thirty years or so everything has been focused on this massive yet fuzzy future catastrophe rather than the real, specific, less "critical" damage being done now. Thing is, addressing the latter will pretty much address the former as well. Activists insist on framing their message in terms of the former, though, even going so far as to claim focusing on immediate local effects is "missing the big picture".