5 ms·

The Sad Truth About Traditional Environmentalism

35 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

twoodfin 5y ago
Unfortunately, the problem isn’t environmentalism. We don’t have a renewed push for nuclear power for the same reason we don’t have a carbon tax, which would also likely be effective in curbing emissions & that many environmentalists do favor: They’re both ridiculously unpopular with the US electorate. Maybe the environmental movement shoulders some of the blame in each case, but I doubt if both were wholeheartedly embraced by greenies much would change.
- sesuximo 5y ago
  1. IMO and, I think, as this author would say, the electorate is voting based on bad information. 2. If the cost of a nuclear plant were lower, I think we’d see more projects despite the electorate‘s thoughts. (Just my opinions)
  - j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
    > 1. IMO and, I think, as this author would say, the electorate is voting based on bad information. While I wish that were true (because then there would be a solution), I fear that people actually DO know but ... don't care ... > 2. If the cost of a nuclear plant were lower, I think we’d see more projects despite the electorate‘s thoughts. Solar and wind are incredibly cheap (way cheaper than coal), easy (and quick, as you can parallelize) to build ... but somehow that's not happening?
  - twoodfin 5y ago
    I don’t think it’s bad information so much as Americans and their political institutions have a risk calculus that is, to put it mildly, biased against nuclear & its history of dramatic catastrophes vs., say, the slow poisoning from a coal plant.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      I think that Americans also know that "nuclear vs coal" is a false dichotomy. A major issue in the 2016 elections was the ongoing collapse of the coal industry. The USA produces less energy from coal now than it did in the 1940s.
js8 5y ago
Some counterpoint to the claim in the article that green movement refuses nuclear energy: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/08/greens-renewables-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/a... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclear-power-no-hinkley-point-yes-atomic-energy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclea... In any case, I think nuclear is pretty much dead. It's just cheaper to spam windmills and solar panels. I think it will stay there for a while (in some countries, that have the history and the expertise), but it will not gain significantly in the future.
- sesuximo 5y ago
  It’s hard to argue this while several reactors are under construction around the world... just mostly not in the USA and mostly not in Western Europe.
  - j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
    But compared to how much wind and solar are build - "pretty much dead" does describe it fairly well I'd argue. Windmills and solar panels are not just cheaper, they're also easier to build while nuclear power plant construction (at least in Europe) seemed to take forever and got more and more expensive in the process.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      My sense is that nuclear power plants basically can't go forward without lots of government support. No private utility company really wants to shoulder the financial risk for themselves. Between the stratospheric cost to build one, the ~decade it takes to get one online, and the possibility that cheap renewables push prices way down in the coming years, it's just too risky. That probably has at least something to do with why we aren't seeing much new construction in countries with freer economies. I would guess that another significant factor is, for regions like North America and western Europe that already have a substantial investment in nuclear, it perhaps makes more sense to do what they're already doing: upgrading their existing plants rather than building new ones.
elliekelly 5y ago
I’m confused why I keep seeing Quillette on HN. This website exists only to continue fueling the worst byproduct the internet: outrage.
sheer_audacity 5y ago
I don’t consider the Quillette to be a good source of anything and it’s well known to be good at peddling right wing interests. It’s a student newspaper for weird right oddballs. Signed, an ex solar researcher/semiconductor researcher.
sesuximo 5y ago
Great article. The story of Indian point is unfortunate. The reactor was old —- in a perfect world we wouldn’t have to choose between old reactors vs no reactors. But funding new reactors in the US is tough (which is arguably due to US regulations as discussed on HN recently).
woko 5y ago
> What if you’d dedicated most of your life to trying to save the planet, but then you realised that you may have actually—potentially—made things worse? If you are radical about a subject, you'd better be right. That is one reason why most people try not to be too radical about subjects which they do not or cannot fully comprehend. Moreover, I cannot help but sigh, when I see this person go from one extreme to another: wearing a pro-nuclear T-shirt on the first picture, calling out "the ideology that worships renewables" which have "become the latest green god: sun-like, literally", talking about a "boomer environmentalist in the UK", etc. Do we really have to be radical all the time, going North full speed, doing a U-turn and going South full speed? Come on, be humble, you now think you were not right in the past, maybe you are not right today. It is pretty annoying to get told what to do (or not to do) by inconsistent people who are always 100% convinced that they are right when they talk.
ubermonkey 5y ago
Kinda surprised to see Quillette linked here. What's next, OAN?

35 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

Unfortunately, the problem isn’t environmentalism. We don’t have a renewed push for nuclear power for the same reason we don’t have a carbon tax, which would also likely be effective in curbing emissions & that many environmentalists do favor: They’re both ridiculously unpopular with the US electorate. Maybe the environmental movement shoulders some of the blame in each case, but I doubt if both were wholeheartedly embraced by greenies much would change.

sesuximo 5y ago
1. IMO and, I think, as this author would say, the electorate is voting based on bad information. 2. If the cost of a nuclear plant were lower, I think we’d see more projects despite the electorate‘s thoughts. (Just my opinions)
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
  > 1. IMO and, I think, as this author would say, the electorate is voting based on bad information. While I wish that were true (because then there would be a solution), I fear that people actually DO know but ... don't care ... > 2. If the cost of a nuclear plant were lower, I think we’d see more projects despite the electorate‘s thoughts. Solar and wind are incredibly cheap (way cheaper than coal), easy (and quick, as you can parallelize) to build ... but somehow that's not happening?
- twoodfin 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s bad information so much as Americans and their political institutions have a risk calculus that is, to put it mildly, biased against nuclear & its history of dramatic catastrophes vs., say, the slow poisoning from a coal plant.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    I think that Americans also know that "nuclear vs coal" is a false dichotomy. A major issue in the 2016 elections was the ongoing collapse of the coal industry. The USA produces less energy from coal now than it did in the 1940s.

js8 5y ago

Some counterpoint to the claim in the article that green movement refuses nuclear energy: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/08/greens-renewables-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/a... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclear-power-no-hinkley-point-yes-atomic-energy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclea... In any case, I think nuclear is pretty much dead. It's just cheaper to spam windmills and solar panels. I think it will stay there for a while (in some countries, that have the history and the expertise), but it will not gain significantly in the future.

sesuximo 5y ago
It’s hard to argue this while several reactors are under construction around the world... just mostly not in the USA and mostly not in Western Europe.
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
  But compared to how much wind and solar are build - "pretty much dead" does describe it fairly well I'd argue. Windmills and solar panels are not just cheaper, they're also easier to build while nuclear power plant construction (at least in Europe) seemed to take forever and got more and more expensive in the process.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    My sense is that nuclear power plants basically can't go forward without lots of government support. No private utility company really wants to shoulder the financial risk for themselves. Between the stratospheric cost to build one, the ~decade it takes to get one online, and the possibility that cheap renewables push prices way down in the coming years, it's just too risky. That probably has at least something to do with why we aren't seeing much new construction in countries with freer economies. I would guess that another significant factor is, for regions like North America and western Europe that already have a substantial investment in nuclear, it perhaps makes more sense to do what they're already doing: upgrading their existing plants rather than building new ones.

elliekelly 5y ago

I’m confused why I keep seeing Quillette on HN. This website exists only to continue fueling the worst byproduct the internet: outrage.

sheer_audacity 5y ago

I don’t consider the Quillette to be a good source of anything and it’s well known to be good at peddling right wing interests. It’s a student newspaper for weird right oddballs. Signed, an ex solar researcher/semiconductor researcher.

sesuximo 5y ago

Great article. The story of Indian point is unfortunate. The reactor was old —- in a perfect world we wouldn’t have to choose between old reactors vs no reactors. But funding new reactors in the US is tough (which is arguably due to US regulations as discussed on HN recently).

woko 5y ago

> What if you’d dedicated most of your life to trying to save the planet, but then you realised that you may have actually—potentially—made things worse? If you are radical about a subject, you'd better be right. That is one reason why most people try not to be too radical about subjects which they do not or cannot fully comprehend. Moreover, I cannot help but sigh, when I see this person go from one extreme to another: wearing a pro-nuclear T-shirt on the first picture, calling out "the ideology that worships renewables" which have "become the latest green god: sun-like, literally", talking about a "boomer environmentalist in the UK", etc. Do we really have to be radical all the time, going North full speed, doing a U-turn and going South full speed? Come on, be humble, you now think you were not right in the past, maybe you are not right today. It is pretty annoying to get told what to do (or not to do) by inconsistent people who are always 100% convinced that they are right when they talk.

ubermonkey 5y ago

Kinda surprised to see Quillette linked here. What's next, OAN?