5 ms·

I sense some cognitive dissonance here. You want that great carbon-free energy provided by nuclear, and you lament all the reasons it won't happen. Except you h

by 205guy 8y ago

I sense some cognitive dissonance here. You want that great carbon-free energy provided by nuclear, and you lament all the reasons it won't happen. Except you have no rebuttal to those reasons and almost sound convinced by their soundness yourself. - Politicians won't back nuclear because of the risk of accident, thus giving legitimacy to the risk and the public's fears. - There hasn't been adequate research and advancement in the nuclear industry (and other threads mention the lack of applied design research). So previous scientists and industrials have already determined it's too hard/expensive/difficult. Global warming may change that equation, but it won't make up for lost research. - So people see the exclusion zones and shouldn't be afraid? We currently have 2 molten reactors with no long term solution found. At what point does the fear become irrational? - Same point as above: lack of advancement, bad designs, and human mistakes, how can any of these be fixed to allay fears and be operational in time? - Another comment mentions how storage of waste is a question of will, yet we have pools of it all over, and the underground solution doesn't seem reliable either. All I hear is that nuclear is the perfect solution if it were perfect and people weren't irrational. Here's a qustion to help cut through the Gordon knot: at what point is it scientifically rational to accept/shun nuclear?

kortilla 8y ago
>Politicians won't back nuclear because of the risk of accident, thus giving legitimacy to the risk and the public's fears. No, that’s not the case. Politicians won’t back it because of their perceived risk based on their own ignorance. Or, even if they aren’t ignorant, they are focused more on staying in office rather than helping humanity so they don’t take up any projects that the ignorant public might pitchfork about. Neither of these “give legitimacy” to incorrect risk analysis. A politician being afraid of flying does not give legitimacy to flying fears either. Risk isn’t measured by popularity. AOC will gain far more popularity from her completely unrealistic green new deal than she ever would proposing something that would actually help based on nuclear. Politicians propose what’s popular, not what’s moral, ethical, or scientifically sound. >Here's a qustion to help cut through the Gordon knot: at what point is it scientifically rational to accept/shun nuclear? When peoples’ fears are based on a real understanding/evidence and not their own ignorant imaginations.
- 205guy 8y ago
  See my point about realpolitik above. Politicians more or less reflect the people, for better or for worse. Politicians are also the leaders and deciders, if not them, who else? There is a healthy nuclear industry, lobby, and research, so it's not like nuclear is unfairly excluded from the solutions table. As others have pointed out, cost overruns have sunk many modern nuclear projects. > real understanding/evidence Well, where are they? I originally replied to trimbo's comment because he seemed to be pro-nuclear and scientific, but then all his arguments seemed to acknowledge that well, nuclear wasn't up to the task. So where are the rational arguments that nuclear can be a solution?
  - kortilla 8y ago
    The argument is that there are no rational reasons for humans not to support nuclear. The only reason it’s “not up to the task” is because humans as a group are behaving incredibly stupidly by ignoring the numbers and murdering people with coal while concern trolling an energy that kills fewer people than your standard annual mass shootings. So the rational arguments are everywhere. The problem is that people want to clutch onto their irrational fear and believe in eithe the fantasy of non existent climate change or the fantasy of solar/wind storage becoming feasible in 10 years or less. In other words, as a technical solution there isn’t anything nearly as good. There are no rational arguments against that. It’s arguing with anti-vaxers at this point. As an actual solution, well how do we deal with the anti-vaxer problem? The same could be applied there.
    - pfdietz 8y ago
      But there's a very rational reason to not support nuclear: it's too expensive. I used to support nuclear, but this argument against it has become too strong.
michaelt 8y ago
The reason politicians don't back nuclear is because of the way our political system operates. A politician might believe our nation will need more power plants within the next 20 years. But they're incentivised to do the thing that, relatively, will be best for their near-term re-election prospects. And just think of all the things that are better for their re-election prospects than a nuclear power plant in their constituency: * A nuclear power plant in someone else's constituency. Play chicken with keeping the lights on and maybe someone else will swerve! * Running an existing coal or gas power plant for longer * A solar or wind power installation. Or better yet, one in someone else's back yard. * Demand reduction like subsidised LED lightbulbs. * Vague technology promises, like electric car batteries stabilising the grid. * Finding of creating some organisation to take the blame once the brownouts and bill increases start. * Just plain doing nothing and retiring before the bill comes due. Why risk your job today supporting a nuclear plant, when you can kick the can down the road and keep yourself employed for another 20 years, maybe more? Politicians are subject to those incentives, and it's hardly realistic to expect them to place the nation's interests above their own. Frankly it's a wonder any infrastructure gets built at all.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  No, the reason nuclear is shunned is largely one of cost. Rate payers don't want higher rates. Nuclear has led to huge financial risk displaced to the rate payers, and they don't like it. And they let their politicians know they don't like it.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Well, I think there's more than one reason, corresponding to the multiple points in the posts by trimbo and 205guy. And one of those reasons is political, independent of finance. I agree other reasons are financial. The reason I think there are political reasons independent of the financial is because I've seen politicians oppose waste incinerators and windfarms in the face of local opposition, even though they were entirely privately financed.
    - 8y ago

by 205guy 8y ago

kortilla 8y ago

>Politicians won't back nuclear because of the risk of accident, thus giving legitimacy to the risk and the public's fears. No, that’s not the case. Politicians won’t back it because of their perceived risk based on their own ignorance. Or, even if they aren’t ignorant, they are focused more on staying in office rather than helping humanity so they don’t take up any projects that the ignorant public might pitchfork about. Neither of these “give legitimacy” to incorrect risk analysis. A politician being afraid of flying does not give legitimacy to flying fears either. Risk isn’t measured by popularity. AOC will gain far more popularity from her completely unrealistic green new deal than she ever would proposing something that would actually help based on nuclear. Politicians propose what’s popular, not what’s moral, ethical, or scientifically sound. >Here's a qustion to help cut through the Gordon knot: at what point is it scientifically rational to accept/shun nuclear? When peoples’ fears are based on a real understanding/evidence and not their own ignorant imaginations.

205guy 8y ago
See my point about realpolitik above. Politicians more or less reflect the people, for better or for worse. Politicians are also the leaders and deciders, if not them, who else? There is a healthy nuclear industry, lobby, and research, so it's not like nuclear is unfairly excluded from the solutions table. As others have pointed out, cost overruns have sunk many modern nuclear projects. > real understanding/evidence Well, where are they? I originally replied to trimbo's comment because he seemed to be pro-nuclear and scientific, but then all his arguments seemed to acknowledge that well, nuclear wasn't up to the task. So where are the rational arguments that nuclear can be a solution?
- kortilla 8y ago
  The argument is that there are no rational reasons for humans not to support nuclear. The only reason it’s “not up to the task” is because humans as a group are behaving incredibly stupidly by ignoring the numbers and murdering people with coal while concern trolling an energy that kills fewer people than your standard annual mass shootings. So the rational arguments are everywhere. The problem is that people want to clutch onto their irrational fear and believe in eithe the fantasy of non existent climate change or the fantasy of solar/wind storage becoming feasible in 10 years or less. In other words, as a technical solution there isn’t anything nearly as good. There are no rational arguments against that. It’s arguing with anti-vaxers at this point. As an actual solution, well how do we deal with the anti-vaxer problem? The same could be applied there.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    But there's a very rational reason to not support nuclear: it's too expensive. I used to support nuclear, but this argument against it has become too strong.

michaelt 8y ago

The reason politicians don't back nuclear is because of the way our political system operates. A politician might believe our nation will need more power plants within the next 20 years. But they're incentivised to do the thing that, relatively, will be best for their near-term re-election prospects. And just think of all the things that are better for their re-election prospects than a nuclear power plant in their constituency: * A nuclear power plant in someone else's constituency. Play chicken with keeping the lights on and maybe someone else will swerve! * Running an existing coal or gas power plant for longer * A solar or wind power installation. Or better yet, one in someone else's back yard. * Demand reduction like subsidised LED lightbulbs. * Vague technology promises, like electric car batteries stabilising the grid. * Finding of creating some organisation to take the blame once the brownouts and bill increases start. * Just plain doing nothing and retiring before the bill comes due. Why risk your job today supporting a nuclear plant, when you can kick the can down the road and keep yourself employed for another 20 years, maybe more? Politicians are subject to those incentives, and it's hardly realistic to expect them to place the nation's interests above their own. Frankly it's a wonder any infrastructure gets built at all.

pfdietz 8y ago
No, the reason nuclear is shunned is largely one of cost. Rate payers don't want higher rates. Nuclear has led to huge financial risk displaced to the rate payers, and they don't like it. And they let their politicians know they don't like it.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Well, I think there's more than one reason, corresponding to the multiple points in the posts by trimbo and 205guy. And one of those reasons is political, independent of finance. I agree other reasons are financial. The reason I think there are political reasons independent of the financial is because I've seen politicians oppose waste incinerators and windfarms in the face of local opposition, even though they were entirely privately financed.
  - 8y ago