4 ms·

> this narrative of the demise of nuclear energy largely being politically motivated It's politically motivated to the extent that people are scared of nuclear

> this narrative of the demise of nuclear energy largely being politically motivated It's politically motivated to the extent that people are scared of nuclear and any political move to support it or finance research could be career suicide. Without any attempt to research improvements we are stuck using old technology and anyone advocating against nuclear power has good reason to keep doing so. It's a bit of a vicious cycle where the only way to break it is to hope for some unexpected breakthrough.

lispm 7y ago
Germany has invested zillions in Nuclear. Breeder technology, Thorium pebble bed reactor, storage sites... Failed costly experiments. Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society. Phrased this way, this is less of a problem with nuclear and more a problem with said democratic society.
  - lispm 7y ago
    > this is less of a problem with nuclear It's exactly a problem with Nuclear, because it thrives only in centralized, monopolistic, authoritarian, non-market situations and actually supports those structures. It's such in many countries. That's why Nuclear is on the way out in the West. The struggle will be to build new ones and even keep the current level. The French EPR is way over budget&time in France and Finland. Basically Nuclear is also not insurable. That's why all risks are state owned. Building them is only possible with large amount of state money and protected markets (see the new EPR for the UK).
  - smuemd 7y ago
    This is exactly right. > In “Der Atomstaat” (“The Nuclear State”) Jungk quotes the Austrian scientist Helga Novotny, who back in the day worked at the IIASA (International Institute für Applied Systems Analysis) in Vienna/Laxenburg. She said that “the opposition against nuclear energy roots in the resistance against those who profit from the increasing economical and scientific focus. The opposition is directed against large-scale industry that makes common cause with big states and big science. It is the resistance of those who feel powerless and small in the face of the developments” (Der Atomstaat, 1977, zit. n. Ausgabe 1979 p. 77ff). This finding is still relevant today and still undermines democracy. https://jungk-bibliothek.org/robert_jungk_english_2/ https://jungk-bibliothek.org/robert_jungk_english_2/
    - lispm 7y ago
      It's the Atomstaat which works against the democracy.
      - close04 7y ago
        Democracy works great when people know what they're talking about. But sometimes they're "educated" by mass media and "scarecrows". They bring arguments like "we shouldn't even try, it definitely can't work" (without real knowledge and proof) or "we can't invest in this because we already invest in that" (as if investments in parallel research is unheard of). It's when you get to see the downsides of democracy and it's how democratic systems elect populist leaders not because they are better. In the mean time (tens of) billions of Euros are spent on projects where some still have no end in sight (Stuttgart 21; Berlin Brandenburg Airport; Elbphilarmonie) but that's an easier sell because they look fancy. Nuclear research of any kind has a massive stigma associated to the label. Since most people's "education" related to nuclear power is "Chernobyl and Fukushima" politicians will become populists and won't risk their cozy seat. If all your education about flying machines was "Hindenburg" you'd walk.
        lispm 7y ago
        > Democracy works great when people know what they're talking about. Energy policy has been widely discussed in Germany for three decades. There was even a party founded which had this as one of their main political topics. That party has been relatively stable and has been in the federal government for a few years. > Stuttgart 21; Berlin Brandenburg Airport; Elbphilarmonie ... that's an easier sell because they look fancy None of these decisions were particular popular. > Nuclear research of any kind has a massive stigma associated to the label Rightly so. But worse is nuclear deployment in the form of large scale nuclear power plants in densely populated countries.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- close04 7y ago
  > Failed costly experiments. The battle for finding cancer cures had so many dead ends but it's the worthiness of the cause that keeps you going. The promise of single power plants able to produce an almost endless supply of cheap, clean(ish?) energy still tickles the imagination more than vast swaths of land covered by PV panels or wind turbines. > Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society. Democracy is about picking your aim, not making the target more cost effective. And the more complex the topic, the less qualified regular people are at even guessing if something is cost effective or not. Also absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we failed to make the tech cost effective until now doesn't mean it cannot be and never will be. You suggest anything that we've failed at for a few decades (even if some attempts are half-hearted) should just be halted because that's proof it cannot be done. Some of our greatest achievements came from people who wouldn't give up. Some are yet to come. Or we can just stop it all because democracy and cost effectiveness. This is exactly why the move away from nuclear is politically motivated. Not because it's a foregone conclusion that it cannot be solved but rather because a politician will find it easier to convince "the democracy" that spending tens of billions on a stealth democracy dispatcher is more cost effective than spending the same on trying to improve nuclear to the point of eliminating the key downsides.
  - lispm 7y ago
    > The promise of single power plants Such a promise does not produce any power and does not scale. > Just because we failed to make the tech cost effective until now doesn't mean it cannot be and never will be. We are making solar and wind cost effective. It's already happening. In scale.
    - close04 7y ago
      You haven't addressed the core of my comment that we usually don't stop just because we failed a few times. Are you arguing we should stop all research that hasn't produced results after a certain time or budget? The argumentation you're basing your opinion on is circular: we couldn't do it > so we shouldn't do it > so we couldn't do it. It also relies on the assumption that investing in nuclear research prevents us from investing in solar and wind power, which it shouldn't. There's no reason to stop research into better alternatives just because we have something that "works". > It's already happening. In scale. Again, you are evading the fact that (the as of yet unfulfilled promise of) better nuclear power would actually deliver more than that. In the mean time our energy needs are increasing faster than the efficiency of PV cells and generators is. There's nothing wrong with researching even better alternatives. Just over a decade ago so many were insisting EVs were dead in the water. We had tried and failed and ICE tech was delivering and constantly improving. You're not arguing that nuclear is bad, you're arguing that we should not even attempt to make it better or good. Why build cars when we can already do it with horses and horses scale... You could be correct but not based on the arguments you brought so far.

lispm 7y ago

Germany has invested zillions in Nuclear. Breeder technology, Thorium pebble bed reactor, storage sites... Failed costly experiments. Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society. Phrased this way, this is less of a problem with nuclear and more a problem with said democratic society.
- lispm 7y ago
  > this is less of a problem with nuclear It's exactly a problem with Nuclear, because it thrives only in centralized, monopolistic, authoritarian, non-market situations and actually supports those structures. It's such in many countries. That's why Nuclear is on the way out in the West. The struggle will be to build new ones and even keep the current level. The French EPR is way over budget&time in France and Finland. Basically Nuclear is also not insurable. That's why all risks are state owned. Building them is only possible with large amount of state money and protected markets (see the new EPR for the UK).
- smuemd 7y ago
  This is exactly right. > In “Der Atomstaat” (“The Nuclear State”) Jungk quotes the Austrian scientist Helga Novotny, who back in the day worked at the IIASA (International Institute für Applied Systems Analysis) in Vienna/Laxenburg. She said that “the opposition against nuclear energy roots in the resistance against those who profit from the increasing economical and scientific focus. The opposition is directed against large-scale industry that makes common cause with big states and big science. It is the resistance of those who feel powerless and small in the face of the developments” (Der Atomstaat, 1977, zit. n. Ausgabe 1979 p. 77ff). This finding is still relevant today and still undermines democracy. https://jungk-bibliothek.org/robert_jungk_english_2/ https://jungk-bibliothek.org/robert_jungk_english_2/
  - lispm 7y ago
    It's the Atomstaat which works against the democracy.
    - close04 7y ago
      Democracy works great when people know what they're talking about. But sometimes they're "educated" by mass media and "scarecrows". They bring arguments like "we shouldn't even try, it definitely can't work" (without real knowledge and proof) or "we can't invest in this because we already invest in that" (as if investments in parallel research is unheard of). It's when you get to see the downsides of democracy and it's how democratic systems elect populist leaders not because they are better. In the mean time (tens of) billions of Euros are spent on projects where some still have no end in sight (Stuttgart 21; Berlin Brandenburg Airport; Elbphilarmonie) but that's an easier sell because they look fancy. Nuclear research of any kind has a massive stigma associated to the label. Since most people's "education" related to nuclear power is "Chernobyl and Fukushima" politicians will become populists and won't risk their cozy seat. If all your education about flying machines was "Hindenburg" you'd walk.
      - lispm 7y ago
        > Democracy works great when people know what they're talking about. Energy policy has been widely discussed in Germany for three decades. There was even a party founded which had this as one of their main political topics. That party has been relatively stable and has been in the federal government for a few years. > Stuttgart 21; Berlin Brandenburg Airport; Elbphilarmonie ... that's an easier sell because they look fancy None of these decisions were particular popular. > Nuclear research of any kind has a massive stigma associated to the label Rightly so. But worse is nuclear deployment in the form of large scale nuclear power plants in densely populated countries.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
close04 7y ago
> Failed costly experiments. The battle for finding cancer cures had so many dead ends but it's the worthiness of the cause that keeps you going. The promise of single power plants able to produce an almost endless supply of cheap, clean(ish?) energy still tickles the imagination more than vast swaths of land covered by PV panels or wind turbines. > Nuclear is simply not cost effective in a democratic society. Democracy is about picking your aim, not making the target more cost effective. And the more complex the topic, the less qualified regular people are at even guessing if something is cost effective or not. Also absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we failed to make the tech cost effective until now doesn't mean it cannot be and never will be. You suggest anything that we've failed at for a few decades (even if some attempts are half-hearted) should just be halted because that's proof it cannot be done. Some of our greatest achievements came from people who wouldn't give up. Some are yet to come. Or we can just stop it all because democracy and cost effectiveness. This is exactly why the move away from nuclear is politically motivated. Not because it's a foregone conclusion that it cannot be solved but rather because a politician will find it easier to convince "the democracy" that spending tens of billions on a stealth democracy dispatcher is more cost effective than spending the same on trying to improve nuclear to the point of eliminating the key downsides.
- lispm 7y ago
  > The promise of single power plants Such a promise does not produce any power and does not scale. > Just because we failed to make the tech cost effective until now doesn't mean it cannot be and never will be. We are making solar and wind cost effective. It's already happening. In scale.
  - close04 7y ago
    You haven't addressed the core of my comment that we usually don't stop just because we failed a few times. Are you arguing we should stop all research that hasn't produced results after a certain time or budget? The argumentation you're basing your opinion on is circular: we couldn't do it > so we shouldn't do it > so we couldn't do it. It also relies on the assumption that investing in nuclear research prevents us from investing in solar and wind power, which it shouldn't. There's no reason to stop research into better alternatives just because we have something that "works". > It's already happening. In scale. Again, you are evading the fact that (the as of yet unfulfilled promise of) better nuclear power would actually deliver more than that. In the mean time our energy needs are increasing faster than the efficiency of PV cells and generators is. There's nothing wrong with researching even better alternatives. Just over a decade ago so many were insisting EVs were dead in the water. We had tried and failed and ICE tech was delivering and constantly improving. You're not arguing that nuclear is bad, you're arguing that we should not even attempt to make it better or good. Why build cars when we can already do it with horses and horses scale... You could be correct but not based on the arguments you brought so far.