3 ms·

We know how, it’s just that nobody wants to pay for it or have it stored in their state. This is a failure of politics, not technology. Ironically the result

We know how, it’s just that nobody wants to pay for it or have it stored in their state. This is a failure of politics, not technology. Ironically the result is that of course we still store the stuff, but it’s on-site in pools all over the country, which is much less secure than known alternatives. Because no one is willing to spend political capital to centralize and modernize storage in their backyard, it’s in everyone’s backyard.

7952 8y ago
But proposals need to be politically viable in order to actually be built! Human weakness is a serious failure mode in complex engineering projects and needs to be treated seriously.
- girvo 8y ago
  But what about when collectively we decide to optimise for short-term rather than long-term? I mean that’s basically the modus operandi of politics, and that means that engineering problems — following your line of thinking — must do the same? Because getting politicians and even regular people to care about the future has proven intractable, to my mind.
  - 7952 8y ago
    That seems to be true. Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument.
    - girvo 8y ago
      > Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. Although it's somewhat distasteful to a lot of engineers, I completely agree with you here. It's difficult, but if we don't play politics, we will lose. Iterated prisoners dilemma, almost. > The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument. In some ways, I think it is, yeah. A lot of the time, people (even technical ones!) don't see the future negative uses of things as particularly dire, up until it's about to come crashing down on their heads.
nisa 8y ago
> We know how [...] decomission plants There are some poeple in Tchernobyl and Fukushima that are eagerly waiting for your call with instructions. Sarcasm aside existing long-term storage projects also turned out to be problem-prone i.e. look up Gorleben[1]. 1: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gorleben-germany-s-endless-search-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-a-672147.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gor...
- cfadvan 8y ago
  Gorleben is thirty years old, and problems with it are hardly indicative of current technology. Chernobyl, also decades old, catastrophically melted down, so “decommission” seems a bit rich. Fukushima was hit by a historic tsunami, and then partially melted down. That’s not so much sarcasm you’re employing, as misdirection.

7952 8y ago

But proposals need to be politically viable in order to actually be built! Human weakness is a serious failure mode in complex engineering projects and needs to be treated seriously.

girvo 8y ago
But what about when collectively we decide to optimise for short-term rather than long-term? I mean that’s basically the modus operandi of politics, and that means that engineering problems — following your line of thinking — must do the same? Because getting politicians and even regular people to care about the future has proven intractable, to my mind.
- 7952 8y ago
  That seems to be true. Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument.
  - girvo 8y ago
    > Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. Although it's somewhat distasteful to a lot of engineers, I completely agree with you here. It's difficult, but if we don't play politics, we will lose. Iterated prisoners dilemma, almost. > The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument. In some ways, I think it is, yeah. A lot of the time, people (even technical ones!) don't see the future negative uses of things as particularly dire, up until it's about to come crashing down on their heads.

nisa 8y ago

> We know how [...] decomission plants There are some poeple in Tchernobyl and Fukushima that are eagerly waiting for your call with instructions. Sarcasm aside existing long-term storage projects also turned out to be problem-prone i.e. look up Gorleben[1]. 1: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gorleben-germany-s-endless-search-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-a-672147.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gor...

cfadvan 8y ago
Gorleben is thirty years old, and problems with it are hardly indicative of current technology. Chernobyl, also decades old, catastrophically melted down, so “decommission” seems a bit rich. Fukushima was hit by a historic tsunami, and then partially melted down. That’s not so much sarcasm you’re employing, as misdirection.