4 ms·

If as you say... "nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century" because... "most people around the world th

by abraae 6y ago

If as you say... "nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century" because... "most people around the world think that nuclear fission is scary" then we are fucked as a species. Science does not respect people's feelings. If people have scary feelings about energy/climate change/wearing masks to prevent a disease that travels in the air, then those feelings need to be changed, or those people need to be sidelined. What we must not do - what we cannot afford to do - its to derail the science to assuage the deniers.

devonkim 6y ago
Given the opposition from our left to nuclear and painting any nuclear proponent as a right-wing science denier trying to defund renewable energy I’m not sure what we can do. Michael Schellenberger has been pilloried by our left despite the decades he put into different approaches before arriving at his nuclear advocacy (and perhaps also deeming for a lot of the climate change doom and gloom as alarmists for the 12 year cliff being cited). But in my view climate change is already here and even if we cut all emissions to zero worldwide we’d be kind of screwed, just not as badly screwed. Holistic yet science-driven conversation on climate change doesn’t seem possible anymore in public discourse and everyone is angry, which doesn’t make them sound exactly objective either.
- epistasis 6y ago
  Viewing this in terms of left-right politics rather than in terms of hard data is one of the primary reasons that nuclear fails again and again as it is tried in the West. The problem isn't politics, the problem is construction logistics. Nobody knows how to build large projects effectively anymore, whether it's the Big Dig or something super complicated like miles of piping with precision welds and specialized concrete pours. If you want to find out why nuclear hasn't worked, look into all the individual cases of construction from Vogtle to VC Summer to Hinkley to the UK's Sizewell C, to all of France's EPR efforts. What you will find is that political fear and regulations are not the problem. It's just management. And when you go back to the US's failures in the late 70s and 80s, you see a similar story of management failure causing construction financial disasters. Even South Korea's apparent successes in construction have been rocked by revelations that inspections were skipped and completed through corruption, nor competence. The primary reason nuclear survives in discussion, IMHO, is as a political wedge issue. Actual political discussion has no connection to reality of the subject matter (as is the case with too much of politics). Shelleneberger is a prime example of the afactual debate when it comes to nuclear. He's looking for ways to convince people, and attract followers, not in rational and informed discussion, and a few minutes of fact checking typically makes short work of his screeds. The anti-nuclear political argumentation is just as bad, and as easily destroyed. The solution is to elevate the debate, and look for actual ways to build nuclear if one thinks it will be a useful tool. That means abandoning the large reactor model and trying SMRs; however I have little hope of those being economical, unless the waste heat or primary has some specialized industrial uses that are uneconomical from electrically driven processes. But at least the will likely be constructable.
  - willis936 6y ago
    It’s not just about making big things. China has recently made some of the largest structures mankind has ever seen, yet their fusion program is decades behind US, Russia, Spain, UK, and France.
  - devonkim 6y ago
    I’m a modular reactor advocate as the most rational approach in fission for the future for the reasons you stated - our collective inability to construct and manage complex monoliths seems to be a problem in physical and software construction regardless of culture or economics as humans. This causes reactionary regulations that bloat costs and thus efficacy. We’d need less stock market and banking market if markets didn’t explode all the time, for example, and lay waste to millions of people’s living, but they don’t take care of themselves exactly without bad externalized costs.
jtolmar 6y ago
Here's a video where an energy professor goes through the finances of gas vs nuclear power (very slowly) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY In short, it takes a very long time for a nuclear power plant to become profitable. Investors would rather pick something like gas that starts being profitable earlier, so they have the profits available to reinvest into other enterprises. I think this, rather than public perception, is why we don't do nuclear power (after all, our society does plenty of other things despite similar levels of outcry).

by abraae 6y ago

devonkim 6y ago

Given the opposition from our left to nuclear and painting any nuclear proponent as a right-wing science denier trying to defund renewable energy I’m not sure what we can do. Michael Schellenberger has been pilloried by our left despite the decades he put into different approaches before arriving at his nuclear advocacy (and perhaps also deeming for a lot of the climate change doom and gloom as alarmists for the 12 year cliff being cited). But in my view climate change is already here and even if we cut all emissions to zero worldwide we’d be kind of screwed, just not as badly screwed. Holistic yet science-driven conversation on climate change doesn’t seem possible anymore in public discourse and everyone is angry, which doesn’t make them sound exactly objective either.

epistasis 6y ago
Viewing this in terms of left-right politics rather than in terms of hard data is one of the primary reasons that nuclear fails again and again as it is tried in the West. The problem isn't politics, the problem is construction logistics. Nobody knows how to build large projects effectively anymore, whether it's the Big Dig or something super complicated like miles of piping with precision welds and specialized concrete pours. If you want to find out why nuclear hasn't worked, look into all the individual cases of construction from Vogtle to VC Summer to Hinkley to the UK's Sizewell C, to all of France's EPR efforts. What you will find is that political fear and regulations are not the problem. It's just management. And when you go back to the US's failures in the late 70s and 80s, you see a similar story of management failure causing construction financial disasters. Even South Korea's apparent successes in construction have been rocked by revelations that inspections were skipped and completed through corruption, nor competence. The primary reason nuclear survives in discussion, IMHO, is as a political wedge issue. Actual political discussion has no connection to reality of the subject matter (as is the case with too much of politics). Shelleneberger is a prime example of the afactual debate when it comes to nuclear. He's looking for ways to convince people, and attract followers, not in rational and informed discussion, and a few minutes of fact checking typically makes short work of his screeds. The anti-nuclear political argumentation is just as bad, and as easily destroyed. The solution is to elevate the debate, and look for actual ways to build nuclear if one thinks it will be a useful tool. That means abandoning the large reactor model and trying SMRs; however I have little hope of those being economical, unless the waste heat or primary has some specialized industrial uses that are uneconomical from electrically driven processes. But at least the will likely be constructable.
- willis936 6y ago
  It’s not just about making big things. China has recently made some of the largest structures mankind has ever seen, yet their fusion program is decades behind US, Russia, Spain, UK, and France.
- devonkim 6y ago
  I’m a modular reactor advocate as the most rational approach in fission for the future for the reasons you stated - our collective inability to construct and manage complex monoliths seems to be a problem in physical and software construction regardless of culture or economics as humans. This causes reactionary regulations that bloat costs and thus efficacy. We’d need less stock market and banking market if markets didn’t explode all the time, for example, and lay waste to millions of people’s living, but they don’t take care of themselves exactly without bad externalized costs.

jtolmar 6y ago

Here's a video where an energy professor goes through the finances of gas vs nuclear power (very slowly) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY In short, it takes a very long time for a nuclear power plant to become profitable. Investors would rather pick something like gas that starts being profitable earlier, so they have the profits available to reinvest into other enterprises. I think this, rather than public perception, is why we don't do nuclear power (after all, our society does plenty of other things despite similar levels of outcry).