4 ms·

And considering the usual ways giant industries choose to "reduce costs", it's a bit unnerving for the rest of us. Blaming the costs on regulatory compliance b

by beat 7y ago

And considering the usual ways giant industries choose to "reduce costs", it's a bit unnerving for the rest of us. Blaming the costs on regulatory compliance bureaucracy is one of those things that pro-nuclear people really need to stop saying, even to the extent that it's true (which is less than they think). Distrust of big corporations is as high as distrust of government, and for good reason. No one wants to live downwind from a nuclear plant constructed by the lowest bidder. Blaming the cost and construction issues on those stupid anti-science treehuggers and their liberal regulations is just alienating the very people you need to win over. That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. And there's probably not a less attractive look for nuclear enthusiasts than some dude mansplaining about how solar is more dangerous than nuclear based on the number of people who smash their thumbs with a hammer while installing panels.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
> That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. I'm going to go ahead and point out that more people die falling off their roofs installing solar per kWh than have died per kWh from decades of nuclear operation [1]. Denigrating that data as mansplaining seems pretty anti-scientific. Both death/kWh rates are nearly zero compared to fossil fuels. Apparent risks, now that's a real problem. Can be solved with PR and education. Check my link in the previous post. You'll see that the industry is writing down in good detail exactly how it plans to reduce costs by increasing procedural efficiency without reducing safety. To just say that appropriate safety has to be expensive, and any attempt to fix it is unsafe, is pretty bold, especially in the face of what the climate scientists are predicting with continued carbon emissions. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4e0e968709b7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
- beat 7y ago
  It doesn't matter if it's technically correct, from a certain perspective. What matters is that when you say something like that, you come off like a smug mansplaining dudebro who treats anyone who disagrees like they're an idiot. It's not a science problem, it's a sales problem. And if you want concerned environmentalist-oriented people to come to your side, you do not do it by mocking their stupidity with a ridiculous-sounding "fact". Doesn't matter if that "fact" is true. Is your goal to convince environmentalists to support nuclear power over solar, or to prove how much smarter you are?
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    OK well I can agree with that! I have never converted an antinuke with that fact. I have converted dozens (at least from absolute rejection to cautious optimism) with 10-15 minute in-person discussions. I have not found out how to scale that. Indeed, this is a sales problem.
    - beat 7y ago
      The pro-nuclear advocates are usually their own worst enemies. That smug dudebro points-scoring is a huge problem. Then again, I think most people would be a lot more effective at life if they'd sit down and read How to Win Friends and Influence People and other basic sales texts. I'm generally anti-nuclear, but not for safety reasons. I'm sure we can build safe plants. Rather, I distrust institutions, whether governments or giant corporations. I'm also concerned about the impact of nuclear power on inequality, as it's simply not available to the poorer nations, for reasons both good (proliferation, terrorism) and bad (lack of infrastructure). Renewable power is so good in terms of fundamentals, particularly accessibility to poor nations and difficulty in using it for state-level violence, that I no longer see good reason to even attempt scaling up nuclear power. A meaningful scaling would take decades of effort and trillions of dollars worldwide. In that time, we'll grow a renewable infrastructure of the same scale profitably and organically.
      - dTal 7y ago

by beat 7y ago

acidburnNSA 7y ago

> That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. I'm going to go ahead and point out that more people die falling off their roofs installing solar per kWh than have died per kWh from decades of nuclear operation [1]. Denigrating that data as mansplaining seems pretty anti-scientific. Both death/kWh rates are nearly zero compared to fossil fuels. Apparent risks, now that's a real problem. Can be solved with PR and education. Check my link in the previous post. You'll see that the industry is writing down in good detail exactly how it plans to reduce costs by increasing procedural efficiency without reducing safety. To just say that appropriate safety has to be expensive, and any attempt to fix it is unsafe, is pretty bold, especially in the face of what the climate scientists are predicting with continued carbon emissions. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4e0e968709b7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

beat 7y ago
It doesn't matter if it's technically correct, from a certain perspective. What matters is that when you say something like that, you come off like a smug mansplaining dudebro who treats anyone who disagrees like they're an idiot. It's not a science problem, it's a sales problem. And if you want concerned environmentalist-oriented people to come to your side, you do not do it by mocking their stupidity with a ridiculous-sounding "fact". Doesn't matter if that "fact" is true. Is your goal to convince environmentalists to support nuclear power over solar, or to prove how much smarter you are?
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  OK well I can agree with that! I have never converted an antinuke with that fact. I have converted dozens (at least from absolute rejection to cautious optimism) with 10-15 minute in-person discussions. I have not found out how to scale that. Indeed, this is a sales problem.
  - beat 7y ago
    The pro-nuclear advocates are usually their own worst enemies. That smug dudebro points-scoring is a huge problem. Then again, I think most people would be a lot more effective at life if they'd sit down and read How to Win Friends and Influence People and other basic sales texts. I'm generally anti-nuclear, but not for safety reasons. I'm sure we can build safe plants. Rather, I distrust institutions, whether governments or giant corporations. I'm also concerned about the impact of nuclear power on inequality, as it's simply not available to the poorer nations, for reasons both good (proliferation, terrorism) and bad (lack of infrastructure). Renewable power is so good in terms of fundamentals, particularly accessibility to poor nations and difficulty in using it for state-level violence, that I no longer see good reason to even attempt scaling up nuclear power. A meaningful scaling would take decades of effort and trillions of dollars worldwide. In that time, we'll grow a renewable infrastructure of the same scale profitably and organically.
    - dTal 7y ago