3 ms·
I am so angry about this. We had the solution for climate change. We had it for dozens of years now. It's called nuclear. It has its downsides, but they are si
by nickpp 5y ago
I am so angry about this. We had the solution for climate change. We had it for dozens of years now.
It's called nuclear. It has its downsides, but they are significantly smaller than downsides of fossil. Even with a few more meltdowns here and there it'd have done much less damage. And if we'd have used it by now we'd have learned to control it better and safer.
But we didn't use it. And there is just one guilty party for that: the green activists. They opposed Nuclear rabidly while never proposing any practical solution instead. We should talk about this. We should point our collective fingers at them.
Because today, the same luddite, anti-tech activists are busy delaying evolution and progress in other areas as well. Their dream of an egalitarian, resource-constrained, pseudo-agrarian society is a nightmare of stagnation and regress. They must be confronted and stopped. If it's not already too late...
It's a war, a culture war. A war between dreams and nightmares, a war between tradition and innovation, a war between progress and stagnation, a war for the future. And it's our only hope.
- dale_glass 5y agoNuclear is dead. Back when it was new, it still had something to offer, but today it's a complete dead end, for practical and economical reasons. It's not getting built because it's hard to make money from it anymore. If it was a solid money making proposition you'd see lots of resources being thrown into overcoming any activist resistance, and shoring up any concerns. Compare this with oil. Ecologically awful, but it makes lots and lots of money and as a result it's not having the same issues.
- nickpp 5y agoIsn't oil subsidized while nuclear covered in red tape and regulations? It should be the other way around: tax carbon and subsidize nuclear.
- dale_glass 5y agoWhich red tape and regulations? You're not seriously asking people not to keep a good eye on nuclear powerplants, are you? Because accidents are not a good thing. And yeah, I get they don't kill that many people, but evacuating a large amount of people and cleaning up is an enormous expense. Which is part of the problem really. You can build a really solid powerplant, which will cost $$. Or you can let people do it on the cheap, and deal with the consequences when it leaks, which will cost $$$.
- nickpp 5y agoOr you can quickly build a coal plant which only costs $. Do you see now how this way of thinking got us into this conundrum?
- dale_glass 5y agoCoal plants are not that profitable anymore. Renewables are what is the cheapest right now: https://i.imgur.com/gj6csyJ.png https://i.imgur.com/gj6csyJ.png Now looking at that graph I think one thing becomes very clear: no sane person would buy power from a nuclear plant if they could get it from solar or wind instead. But if you do that, nuclear becomes even more expensive. It's nearly all capital costs. If you're only selling power during half the day, you make half the money, and take twice as long to pay off the loans. That introduces the very real possibility that you'll never pay it off. And so why would anybody want to build one?
- justin66 5y ago> But we didn't use it. And there is just one guilty party for that: the green activists. They opposed Nuclear rabidly while never proposing any practical solution instead. Say what you will about the values or reasoning of "green activists," the idea that they have wielded enough influence to sway energy policy is risible. Market forces, NIMBYism and fossil fuel lobbying dollars were sufficient to spike nuclear power. > I am so angry about this. > It's a war, a culture war. Greens are a right-wing bogeyman. You're meant to be angry at them.
- nickpp 5y agoPoliticians respond to public perception. Their main skill is to make themselves popular in order to be elected. When green issues started entering the public conscience politicians quickly adopted them and proposed quick&easy fixes. Fear of the unknown of the nuclear made them regulate and red-tape it out of the market. Just look at what Japan and German politicians did when Fukushima happened.
- dale_glass 5y agoThat's IMO one of the problems of nuclear. It's politician-unfriendly. So let's suppose that you're elected President. You want to build nuclear. Chances are pretty good not a single will get completed during your term, which means you won't get to take credit for that achievement. If it all goes well, the main beneficiary will be your successor. If it goes wrong (including just being plain unprofitable), it'll be your legacy. And unless your only mission in life is to get nuclear built, that's a bad thing because there are other things you probably want to achieve. Nuclear is unfortunately so big and so expensive that it constrains your other options.
- graeme 5y agoGermany decommissioned its nuclear power early due to efforts of environmental activists. This isn’t some fantasy. It actually happened. They aren’t solely at fault: the right blocked carbon taxes or any kind of solution they could. But greens had their eye on the wrong ball for sure.