4 ms·

We could have used our educational system in the US to teach people about radiation so they would not be so afraid of it. That would have been great and could h

We could have used our educational system in the US to teach people about radiation so they would not be so afraid of it. That would have been great and could have paved the way to the use of nuclear power about 30-50 years later.

m0zg 7y ago
I'd like to point out that the current extremely paranoid (and expensive) regulatory environment was brought to you by people who were "taught" about radiation during the cold war. I was taught of the dangers of radiation in the 80s. I kind of just translated it into ways to protect myself against alpha, beta and gamma, but I can guarantee most of my school mates only recall that gamma radiation penetrates a meter thick slab of concrete, and don't want any part of it anywhere near, even at the background levels they are already experiencing when flying to their vacations. These same people also don't realize that a coal fired power plant emits about 100x more radiation than a nuclear plant does, and if asked which they prefer would prefer coal. Even if you tell them that coal is more radioactive, most of them will not change their mind. You have too generous a view of the ability of an average person to understand and think rationally about such concepts. In the absence of understanding, fear takes its place. This is TL;DR of why nuclear power stations aren't profitable in the US today.
- beat 7y ago
  Math matters. Nuclear energy is not substantially cheaper in other countries than it is in the US (feel free to provide cites otherwise) - even countries like China where environmentalist rabble-rousers can find themselves in prison. This suggests to me that the regulations for the ignorant paranoid treehuggers are not actually the problem.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Nuclear is one third the cost of gas per TWh in Korea: https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-905a-447a5056d2e6/Comparative-LCOEs-in-4-Countries-NEW.jpg.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-90... Clearly it can be done. And environmental rabble-rousers are religious zealots at this point - devoid almost completely of rational thought. The most environmentally responsible option at this point (and in the foreseeable future) is nuclear.
    - beat 7y ago
      Don't talk like a religious zealot. What is the cost of gas in Korea, vs the cost of gas in the US? We're the largest producer in the world. They have almost no gas of their own, and must import. addendum: I find it striking that this thread is full of people telling me that nuclear costs are high in the US because of the treehuggers, and it's so cheap in France, but according to your chart, nuclear power is actually cheaper in the US than it is in France.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Personally, I think we should stop considering hydrocarbons as a viable power source in the long term. So it doesn't really matter how much gas costs - it should be replaced by a clean energy source regardless of cost. And we should make it economically viable for nuclear (the only currently viable replacement) to do so through a combination of R&D and changes in regulations. Knowing that this will be deliberately misinterpreted for the sake of putting up an argument, I will point out that I am not arguing for more lax _safety_ regulations. Just for removing the fossilized crap which doesn't make much sense from the safety standpoint anymore, and costs billions in compliance costs, making new nuclear construction untenable.
        beat 7y ago
        I'm not at all convinced that "regulation" is the cause of high nuclear power costs. I'll note that, per someone else's attempt to rebut me, I learned that nuclear power is cheaper in the US than it is in supposedly enlightened France. Of course, I completely concur that we should eliminate all fossil fuels from the electric grid, as much as possible from transport, and at whatever pace we can manage from building heating. But I want market forces working with us, not against us. You mention "currently viable", but then we need R&D to make it currently viable? For how long? Ten years? Twenty? Wind and solar are viable now. Energy storage is viable now.
        m0zg 7y ago
        It is _technically_ viable as a replacement for hydrocarbons. As in, it could replace all energy generation from hydrocarbons, with room to spare. It is not currently _economically_ viable, however. This is what R&D and adjustments to regulations are supposed to help with. But then, wind and solar aren't economically viable either, and everyone is pushing them like crazy.
- njarboe 7y ago
  I was discussing a system of education that starts early and is more soft. Like having 1st graders using coloring books with nuclear power plants surrounded by beautiful skies and forests while at the same time having pictures of coal plants belching out smoke that cover everything. Later have a class where everyone uses Geiger counters to measure radioactivity in bananas and talk about how it is all around, all the time, and is part of nature. A bit of indoctrination, like all education, but could have countered the high anti-nuclear content of the general zeitgeist.
  - petre 7y ago
    I had exactly a children's book like that in the 80s, in a communist country.
    - njarboe 7y ago
      Bill Gates was planning on building his new prototype nuclear reactor in China until the recent US/China spat made that impossible. Now he hopes to build it in the US, but it might be politically impossible. I hope that is not the case.

m0zg 7y ago

I'd like to point out that the current extremely paranoid (and expensive) regulatory environment was brought to you by people who were "taught" about radiation during the cold war. I was taught of the dangers of radiation in the 80s. I kind of just translated it into ways to protect myself against alpha, beta and gamma, but I can guarantee most of my school mates only recall that gamma radiation penetrates a meter thick slab of concrete, and don't want any part of it anywhere near, even at the background levels they are already experiencing when flying to their vacations. These same people also don't realize that a coal fired power plant emits about 100x more radiation than a nuclear plant does, and if asked which they prefer would prefer coal. Even if you tell them that coal is more radioactive, most of them will not change their mind. You have too generous a view of the ability of an average person to understand and think rationally about such concepts. In the absence of understanding, fear takes its place. This is TL;DR of why nuclear power stations aren't profitable in the US today.

beat 7y ago
Math matters. Nuclear energy is not substantially cheaper in other countries than it is in the US (feel free to provide cites otherwise) - even countries like China where environmentalist rabble-rousers can find themselves in prison. This suggests to me that the regulations for the ignorant paranoid treehuggers are not actually the problem.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Nuclear is one third the cost of gas per TWh in Korea: https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-905a-447a5056d2e6/Comparative-LCOEs-in-4-Countries-NEW.jpg.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-90... Clearly it can be done. And environmental rabble-rousers are religious zealots at this point - devoid almost completely of rational thought. The most environmentally responsible option at this point (and in the foreseeable future) is nuclear.
  - beat 7y ago
    Don't talk like a religious zealot. What is the cost of gas in Korea, vs the cost of gas in the US? We're the largest producer in the world. They have almost no gas of their own, and must import. addendum: I find it striking that this thread is full of people telling me that nuclear costs are high in the US because of the treehuggers, and it's so cheap in France, but according to your chart, nuclear power is actually cheaper in the US than it is in France.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Personally, I think we should stop considering hydrocarbons as a viable power source in the long term. So it doesn't really matter how much gas costs - it should be replaced by a clean energy source regardless of cost. And we should make it economically viable for nuclear (the only currently viable replacement) to do so through a combination of R&D and changes in regulations. Knowing that this will be deliberately misinterpreted for the sake of putting up an argument, I will point out that I am not arguing for more lax _safety_ regulations. Just for removing the fossilized crap which doesn't make much sense from the safety standpoint anymore, and costs billions in compliance costs, making new nuclear construction untenable.
      - beat 7y ago
        I'm not at all convinced that "regulation" is the cause of high nuclear power costs. I'll note that, per someone else's attempt to rebut me, I learned that nuclear power is cheaper in the US than it is in supposedly enlightened France. Of course, I completely concur that we should eliminate all fossil fuels from the electric grid, as much as possible from transport, and at whatever pace we can manage from building heating. But I want market forces working with us, not against us. You mention "currently viable", but then we need R&D to make it currently viable? For how long? Ten years? Twenty? Wind and solar are viable now. Energy storage is viable now.
        m0zg 7y ago
        It is _technically_ viable as a replacement for hydrocarbons. As in, it could replace all energy generation from hydrocarbons, with room to spare. It is not currently _economically_ viable, however. This is what R&D and adjustments to regulations are supposed to help with. But then, wind and solar aren't economically viable either, and everyone is pushing them like crazy.
njarboe 7y ago
I was discussing a system of education that starts early and is more soft. Like having 1st graders using coloring books with nuclear power plants surrounded by beautiful skies and forests while at the same time having pictures of coal plants belching out smoke that cover everything. Later have a class where everyone uses Geiger counters to measure radioactivity in bananas and talk about how it is all around, all the time, and is part of nature. A bit of indoctrination, like all education, but could have countered the high anti-nuclear content of the general zeitgeist.
- petre 7y ago
  I had exactly a children's book like that in the 80s, in a communist country.
  - njarboe 7y ago
    Bill Gates was planning on building his new prototype nuclear reactor in China until the recent US/China spat made that impossible. Now he hopes to build it in the US, but it might be politically impossible. I hope that is not the case.