4 ms·

Given that nuclear power is significantly safer than other forms of power, are you asserting that the risks of self-driving cars are more about PR and perceptio

by ummonk 7y ago

Given that nuclear power is significantly safer than other forms of power, are you asserting that the risks of self-driving cars are more about PR and perception than actual risk?

mumblemumble 7y ago
I'm saying that nuclear power could have been a safer energy option, but, in practice, the whole enterprise has been scuttled by a bunch of regrettably bad decisions that have pretty much destroyed everyone's trust. So now it doesn't really matter if it's safer, because it can no longer realistically be considered an option.
- keenmaster 7y ago
  If everyone believes that everyone else will be irrational, then they themselves will not throw their support behind nuclear power, rendering their stance on nuclear de facto irrational. As Baby Boomers age, and Millennials/GenZ form a greater percentage of the voting population, we have an opportunity to press the reset button on nuclear. The younger generations don’t really have a solid opinion on the matter, and probably don’t think about it much. Scientists are in the best position to influence the public and push for change. It is astonishing that scientific organizations have been timid about nuclear energy, or outright against it, because of a few people with the most extreme, empirically unjustified stance.
  - kozd 7y ago
    Is it a tautology or just an unfortunate nash equilibrium?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - keenmaster 7y ago
      As you know, a nash equilibrium is the point at which no player can benefit from a move away from the equilibrium. However, that's a concept from game theory. What is the game here? Who are the players? Part of my point is that you might think that the game is "scientists vs. politicians, ignoramuses, and fear-mongers," but that's not the case. Sometimes they're all on the same side. Imagine a 4 player split-screen Star Fox, where the scientist leaves their controller and helps the others shoot down their plane because they don't think they can win. If that sounds baffling, it is.
  - illinformed 7y ago
    >Scientists are in the best position to influence the public and push for change. No they are not, as always the rich elite control the world, just take climate change, air temperatures normalised in less than 24hrs after 9/11 over North America because the artificial clouds in the upper atmosphere caused by aircraft contrails were removed with the flight ban. https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set... https://news.psu.edu/story/141202/2005/12/05/research/probing-question-does-commercial-jet-traffic-affect-climate https://news.psu.edu/story/141202/2005/12/05/research/probin... https://web.archive.org/web/20160411094048/http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160411094048/http://www.atmos.... https://www.livescience.com/14944-wwii-bombing-raids-contrails-weather-climate.html https://www.livescience.com/14944-wwii-bombing-raids-contrai... How can you stop business making and selling to the rich elite big flash properties around the world, big flash gas guzzlers, yachts, planes, jets and helicopters? If you remove the politics of envy, how else do you drive innovation? Besides IF the eco friendly people wanted to be green why dont they use the most energy dense fuels on the planet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Tables_of_energy_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Tables_of_energ... Energy density is a security risk, plain and simple, so just like your smart phone battery or laptop battery is a plastic explosive if heated above 60 degrees C, the use of nuclear fuel and engines are a security risk from natives going wild and foreign powers attacking with missiles. Nuclear powered aircraft has been tried before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion Unfortunately, the weight and size of the nuclear engine using 1940's/1950's technology made it unfeasible, but more recent developments and testing in submarines and more recently the US embassy in London as a building example, the potential for a slimmed down lighter nuclear engine for more common uses is becoming viable. However battery technology notably using graphene instead of lithium will be a seismic shift in energy storage by an order of magnitude, so I would expect to see electricity infrastructure upgrades first before the next gen graphene batterys hit the market with week long lifespans when a day used to be consider good.
jwandborg 7y ago
I think the point is rather that it's an unpredictable-stakes game. That is, if you make few enough mistakes, you'll be fine for a long time until you make the wrong mistake at the wrong time and it kills somebody. Maybe a better analogy is driving a car, that is, nuclear power and self-driving cars are both vaguely like driving a car. However, my intuition is that nuclear power has less variables than driving a car. I say intuition because I don't know much about neither. I think the point is that self-driving cars trained on poor data are no better than poorly trained superhumans at driving.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "However, my intuition is that nuclear power has less variables than driving a car." During the cold war they launched fission reactors into orbit. That probably had more variables. Then again, since the nuclear airplane project was unsuccessful, maybe that had the most variables of all.
  - jwandborg 7y ago
    Well, nuclear power isn't harder because you put it in a car, but it's a great way to add to the complexity of the system as a whole. Putting a nuclear reactor in space (as we still do, I think the most recent Mars rover had one) greatly reduces the risk of it directly causing deaths, since it's really far away from humans for most of its service life.
MrQuincle 7y ago
Check this concept car from 1957: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon We could have had your safe nuclear power involved in every road accident. Yeah!

by ummonk 7y ago

Given that nuclear power is significantly safer than other forms of power, are you asserting that the risks of self-driving cars are more about PR and perception than actual risk?

mumblemumble 7y ago

I'm saying that nuclear power could have been a safer energy option, but, in practice, the whole enterprise has been scuttled by a bunch of regrettably bad decisions that have pretty much destroyed everyone's trust. So now it doesn't really matter if it's safer, because it can no longer realistically be considered an option.

keenmaster 7y ago
If everyone believes that everyone else will be irrational, then they themselves will not throw their support behind nuclear power, rendering their stance on nuclear de facto irrational. As Baby Boomers age, and Millennials/GenZ form a greater percentage of the voting population, we have an opportunity to press the reset button on nuclear. The younger generations don’t really have a solid opinion on the matter, and probably don’t think about it much. Scientists are in the best position to influence the public and push for change. It is astonishing that scientific organizations have been timid about nuclear energy, or outright against it, because of a few people with the most extreme, empirically unjustified stance.
- kozd 7y ago
  Is it a tautology or just an unfortunate nash equilibrium?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    As you know, a nash equilibrium is the point at which no player can benefit from a move away from the equilibrium. However, that's a concept from game theory. What is the game here? Who are the players? Part of my point is that you might think that the game is "scientists vs. politicians, ignoramuses, and fear-mongers," but that's not the case. Sometimes they're all on the same side. Imagine a 4 player split-screen Star Fox, where the scientist leaves their controller and helps the others shoot down their plane because they don't think they can win. If that sounds baffling, it is.
- illinformed 7y ago
  >Scientists are in the best position to influence the public and push for change. No they are not, as always the rich elite control the world, just take climate change, air temperatures normalised in less than 24hrs after 9/11 over North America because the artificial clouds in the upper atmosphere caused by aircraft contrails were removed with the flight ban. https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set... https://news.psu.edu/story/141202/2005/12/05/research/probing-question-does-commercial-jet-traffic-affect-climate https://news.psu.edu/story/141202/2005/12/05/research/probin... https://web.archive.org/web/20160411094048/http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160411094048/http://www.atmos.... https://www.livescience.com/14944-wwii-bombing-raids-contrails-weather-climate.html https://www.livescience.com/14944-wwii-bombing-raids-contrai... How can you stop business making and selling to the rich elite big flash properties around the world, big flash gas guzzlers, yachts, planes, jets and helicopters? If you remove the politics of envy, how else do you drive innovation? Besides IF the eco friendly people wanted to be green why dont they use the most energy dense fuels on the planet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Tables_of_energy_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Tables_of_energ... Energy density is a security risk, plain and simple, so just like your smart phone battery or laptop battery is a plastic explosive if heated above 60 degrees C, the use of nuclear fuel and engines are a security risk from natives going wild and foreign powers attacking with missiles. Nuclear powered aircraft has been tried before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion Unfortunately, the weight and size of the nuclear engine using 1940's/1950's technology made it unfeasible, but more recent developments and testing in submarines and more recently the US embassy in London as a building example, the potential for a slimmed down lighter nuclear engine for more common uses is becoming viable. However battery technology notably using graphene instead of lithium will be a seismic shift in energy storage by an order of magnitude, so I would expect to see electricity infrastructure upgrades first before the next gen graphene batterys hit the market with week long lifespans when a day used to be consider good.

jwandborg 7y ago

I think the point is rather that it's an unpredictable-stakes game. That is, if you make few enough mistakes, you'll be fine for a long time until you make the wrong mistake at the wrong time and it kills somebody. Maybe a better analogy is driving a car, that is, nuclear power and self-driving cars are both vaguely like driving a car. However, my intuition is that nuclear power has less variables than driving a car. I say intuition because I don't know much about neither. I think the point is that self-driving cars trained on poor data are no better than poorly trained superhumans at driving.

perl4ever 7y ago
"However, my intuition is that nuclear power has less variables than driving a car." During the cold war they launched fission reactors into orbit. That probably had more variables. Then again, since the nuclear airplane project was unsuccessful, maybe that had the most variables of all.
- jwandborg 7y ago
  Well, nuclear power isn't harder because you put it in a car, but it's a great way to add to the complexity of the system as a whole. Putting a nuclear reactor in space (as we still do, I think the most recent Mars rover had one) greatly reduces the risk of it directly causing deaths, since it's really far away from humans for most of its service life.

MrQuincle 7y ago

Check this concept car from 1957: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon We could have had your safe nuclear power involved in every road accident. Yeah!