6 ms·

I think this is a more complicated issue than most people seem to think it is. Very few countries have knowledge in nuclear technology while they have decades

by moksly 5y ago

I think this is a more complicated issue than most people seem to think it is. Very few countries have knowledge in nuclear technology while they have decades of knowledge in other green technologies. So it’s only natural that there is a severe push from European countries to make sure Nuclear doesn’t become a “green” source of energy because our industries are build upon wind and solar, and if we start using Nuclear as a viable alternative then all that industry money will go to China rather than our local production industry. So there is a monetary issue. There is also a democratic issue. The overwhelming majority of Europeans are against nuclear power and if you consider our current unstable political climate, I think nobody will want the “elite” to start pushing a technology that is genuinely seen as much more dangerous than coal. What I think a lot of Nuclear supports fail to grasp is that it doesn’t matter if Nuclear is safer or better solution if that’s not what people think it is. A good example that Americans might better understand is the covid vaccine and how irrational your country has been in accepting it. That’s how the EU is with Nuclear, and pushing it could quite literally end up toppling governments. I’m personally not convinced Nuclear is the “right” solution. It may be the only real way to solve the climate crisis, but it’s only safe when you have a stable government that maintains it in a sane manner. I don’t think we can be sure that we are going to have such governments in 25 years. So it’s not that I don’t trust the technology, it’s that I don’t trust us to handle it.

rsj_hn 5y ago
The issue isn't whether nuclear energy is complicated, but whether it's part of the discussion. Of course it has to be part of the discussion, so this makes COP look less serious, as it seems like they are catering more to Green movement politics than to fossil fuel alternatives.
- moksly 5y ago
  I’m not sure people view COP as serious in general. In my anecdotal experience, people sort of stopped thinking the political elite would solve this back in the 90’ies. And back then they managed to do something about the hole in the ozone layer. A hole that is bigger today than it was back then, prompting no action. But you’re right of course. I was just getting into the myriad of reasons why some EU leaders actively work against Nuclear at places like COP. My own country is actively lobbying against getting Nuclear recognised as green technology by the EU because wind and solar are major industries in Denmark.
MarcoZavala 5y ago
visarga 5y ago
> So it’s not that I don’t trust the technology, it’s that I don’t trust us to handle it. Glossing over the human death toll caused by the other energy sources is not useful. It's not like the other sources are perfectly safe.
- moksly 5y ago
  The human death toll is no doubt greater from fossils, but it’s sort of like traffic safety isn’t it? Something we just live with. In my part of Europe, anyone of my age or above still remembers Chernobyl and how we had to burn farming produce, clothes that had been drying outside and a range of other things, even here in Scandinavia because it wasn’t safe. I don’t think you’re ever going to convince my generation and the ones that came before that Nuclear is a good idea. Because we lived through the risk of Europe becoming inhabitable due to human in competence. But maybe I’m wrong.
holomorphically 5y ago
If you don't think we will have stable governments in 25 years with nuclear technology then we definitely will not have stable governments with non-nuclear tech. Even 2C degrees of warming is going to create a whole bunch of economic and political instability because of mass migrations, food and water shortages, and escalating conflicts. This is the optimistic scenario and assumes everything goes according to plan and some magical negative carbon technologies are deployed alongside green and fossil tech (which is highly unlikely). Nuclear is the only viable option. Everything else is certain disaster.

by moksly 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

The issue isn't whether nuclear energy is complicated, but whether it's part of the discussion. Of course it has to be part of the discussion, so this makes COP look less serious, as it seems like they are catering more to Green movement politics than to fossil fuel alternatives.

moksly 5y ago
I’m not sure people view COP as serious in general. In my anecdotal experience, people sort of stopped thinking the political elite would solve this back in the 90’ies. And back then they managed to do something about the hole in the ozone layer. A hole that is bigger today than it was back then, prompting no action. But you’re right of course. I was just getting into the myriad of reasons why some EU leaders actively work against Nuclear at places like COP. My own country is actively lobbying against getting Nuclear recognised as green technology by the EU because wind and solar are major industries in Denmark.

MarcoZavala 5y ago

visarga 5y ago

> So it’s not that I don’t trust the technology, it’s that I don’t trust us to handle it. Glossing over the human death toll caused by the other energy sources is not useful. It's not like the other sources are perfectly safe.

moksly 5y ago
The human death toll is no doubt greater from fossils, but it’s sort of like traffic safety isn’t it? Something we just live with. In my part of Europe, anyone of my age or above still remembers Chernobyl and how we had to burn farming produce, clothes that had been drying outside and a range of other things, even here in Scandinavia because it wasn’t safe. I don’t think you’re ever going to convince my generation and the ones that came before that Nuclear is a good idea. Because we lived through the risk of Europe becoming inhabitable due to human in competence. But maybe I’m wrong.

holomorphically 5y ago

If you don't think we will have stable governments in 25 years with nuclear technology then we definitely will not have stable governments with non-nuclear tech. Even 2C degrees of warming is going to create a whole bunch of economic and political instability because of mass migrations, food and water shortages, and escalating conflicts. This is the optimistic scenario and assumes everything goes according to plan and some magical negative carbon technologies are deployed alongside green and fossil tech (which is highly unlikely). Nuclear is the only viable option. Everything else is certain disaster.