4 ms·

It's difficult to have a rational discussion about nuclear power with all the pro-nuclear shilling and the anti-nuclear FUD. However the following concerns are

It's difficult to have a rational discussion about nuclear power with all the pro-nuclear shilling and the anti-nuclear FUD. However the following concerns are standing: - Nuclear is becoming more expensive while solar and wind are becoming much cheaper. Nuclear and renewables compete for investments so people disagree on what to invest to. - Nuclear proliferation is an unsolved problem and the risk is growing due to increasing tension. - Centralized power production is more vulnerable to war, social unrest and floods compared to distributed power production. Risks of social unrest and climate change is increasing. - Unlike solar, nuclear technology is difficult to deploy safely in developing countries, increasing inequality in energy access. - Centralized [power] production is intrinsically less democratic than distributed. - Safe very-long-term storage of nuclear waste is still being debated. Affordable solutions to reprocess and destroy existing waste have not been adopted yet. - Deployment of new nuclear power takes decades and might be too slow do address climate change. - Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production.

automatic6131 4y ago
> Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production. These people should be ignored. They are not serious people. And, against these concerns, there are only two renewable sources that provide constant power and both are limited by geography: hydro and tidal. I'm not aware of any high output tidal in the first place, and both are extremely limited about where they can be built in the first place.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  You made a false quote including "These people should be ignored. They are not serious people." as if I wrote it.
  - automatic6131 4y ago
    My mistake, definitely my opinion that.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Thanks for pointing out his typo. He is correct, though. These people should be ignored and they are not serious people. “Humanity should change its baseline behavior“ is a sign of someone who is more interested in decrying the status quo than they are in fixing anything. You cannot fundamentally change humanity. Next proposal, please.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      > “Humanity should change its baseline behavior“ is a sign of someone who is more interested in decrying the status quo than they are in fixing anything. The last 20 years in improving building and vehicle energy efficiency never happened? > You cannot fundamentally change humanity Also the last 10.000 years never happened.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > The last 20 years in improving building and vehicle energy efficiency never happened? What about that demonstrates a fundamental change in humanity, or specifically, a reduction in the overproduction or overconsumption of goods? > Also the last 10.000 years never happened. Do you have 10k years to spare? If anything, I’d argue that most of our contemporary problems are a result of our fundamental nature failing to adapt to the new environment — and new problems — that we’ve created over the past 10,000 years.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Dictionary definition of over-production "the production of more of a product, commodity, or substance than is wanted or needed." Overproduction makes nobody happy by definition and can actively make people unhappy as a sideffect. It is production which is not wanted or needed by anyone, overproduction only exists because we haven't figured out how to share jobs, so instead we give everyone pointless jobs, where they produce pointless products or provide pointless services, just so that they can tick the employment box and get a salary as the division of labor has become an essential part in satisfying basic needs (food and shelter).
avar 4y ago
> Nuclear is becoming more expensive while solar and wind are becoming much cheaper. I'm all for renewables, but this seems rather distorted in a world where we don't price in the externalities of burning fossil fuel. > Nuclear proliferation is an unsolved problem Finland could have nukes if they wanted. If a technological backwater like North Korea can get them, anyone can. Nuclear proliferation isn't being held back by technical details, but policies, international sanctions from the likes of the US etc. > Centralized [power] production is intrinsically less democratic than distributed. Is it? E.g. Norway and Switzerland are diversifying now, but for decades hydro-power dwarfed anything else in their energy mix. Hydro is arguably a lot more centralized than nuclear. I could just as equally advance my pet theory that if your society doesn't have a collective stake in some sort of centralized infrastructure (health care, energy production etc.) that people are less likely to see any point in the whole project of collective decision making in a democracy. But I think both of us would just be spitballing at that point. > Safe very-long-term storage of nuclear waste is still being debated. Affordable solutions to reprocess and destroy existing waste have not been adopted yet. Nuclear waste is known to be a non-issue to pretty much anyone in the know about nuclear. If we actually cared about taking care of it we could enrich it and get rid of it that way. It's not causing any near-term harm sitting in barrels on-site at nuclear power plants. It's only an "issue" because it's really not, so nobody's had the incentive to really "solve" it politically. > Deployment of new nuclear power takes decades and ... DK, NL, and DE recently signed an agreement for off-shore wind that's expected to be fully completed in 2050. Everything takes a long time. > ....might be too slow do address climate change. We're pissing in the wind when it comes to climate change at this point. > Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production. Those people are already free to try for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the Kalahari or Amazon, meanwhile most sensible commentators will note that there's pretty much a direct line between any metric that measures human prosperity and increased energy usage. There's no issue with increased energy use per-se, just the production methods that have externalities, such as burning fossil fuel (without subsequent capture).
imtringued 4y ago
>- Centralized power production is more vulnerable to war, social unrest and floods compared to distributed power production. Risks of social unrest and climate change is increasing. You forgot droughts. Low flow rates mean you cannot cool your giant thermal power plant without killing the entire river. So you must turn off your nuclear power plant. Geniuses then place the powerplant near oceans with predictable tsunami risks.

automatic6131 4y ago

> Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production. These people should be ignored. They are not serious people. And, against these concerns, there are only two renewable sources that provide constant power and both are limited by geography: hydro and tidal. I'm not aware of any high output tidal in the first place, and both are extremely limited about where they can be built in the first place.

goodpoint 4y ago
You made a false quote including "These people should be ignored. They are not serious people." as if I wrote it.
- automatic6131 4y ago
  My mistake, definitely my opinion that.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Thanks for pointing out his typo. He is correct, though. These people should be ignored and they are not serious people. “Humanity should change its baseline behavior“ is a sign of someone who is more interested in decrying the status quo than they are in fixing anything. You cannot fundamentally change humanity. Next proposal, please.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > “Humanity should change its baseline behavior“ is a sign of someone who is more interested in decrying the status quo than they are in fixing anything. The last 20 years in improving building and vehicle energy efficiency never happened? > You cannot fundamentally change humanity Also the last 10.000 years never happened.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      > The last 20 years in improving building and vehicle energy efficiency never happened? What about that demonstrates a fundamental change in humanity, or specifically, a reduction in the overproduction or overconsumption of goods? > Also the last 10.000 years never happened. Do you have 10k years to spare? If anything, I’d argue that most of our contemporary problems are a result of our fundamental nature failing to adapt to the new environment — and new problems — that we’ve created over the past 10,000 years.
imtringued 4y ago
Dictionary definition of over-production "the production of more of a product, commodity, or substance than is wanted or needed." Overproduction makes nobody happy by definition and can actively make people unhappy as a sideffect. It is production which is not wanted or needed by anyone, overproduction only exists because we haven't figured out how to share jobs, so instead we give everyone pointless jobs, where they produce pointless products or provide pointless services, just so that they can tick the employment box and get a salary as the division of labor has become an essential part in satisfying basic needs (food and shelter).

avar 4y ago

> Nuclear is becoming more expensive while solar and wind are becoming much cheaper. I'm all for renewables, but this seems rather distorted in a world where we don't price in the externalities of burning fossil fuel. > Nuclear proliferation is an unsolved problem Finland could have nukes if they wanted. If a technological backwater like North Korea can get them, anyone can. Nuclear proliferation isn't being held back by technical details, but policies, international sanctions from the likes of the US etc. > Centralized [power] production is intrinsically less democratic than distributed. Is it? E.g. Norway and Switzerland are diversifying now, but for decades hydro-power dwarfed anything else in their energy mix. Hydro is arguably a lot more centralized than nuclear. I could just as equally advance my pet theory that if your society doesn't have a collective stake in some sort of centralized infrastructure (health care, energy production etc.) that people are less likely to see any point in the whole project of collective decision making in a democracy. But I think both of us would just be spitballing at that point. > Safe very-long-term storage of nuclear waste is still being debated. Affordable solutions to reprocess and destroy existing waste have not been adopted yet. Nuclear waste is known to be a non-issue to pretty much anyone in the know about nuclear. If we actually cared about taking care of it we could enrich it and get rid of it that way. It's not causing any near-term harm sitting in barrels on-site at nuclear power plants. It's only an "issue" because it's really not, so nobody's had the incentive to really "solve" it politically. > Deployment of new nuclear power takes decades and ... DK, NL, and DE recently signed an agreement for off-shore wind that's expected to be fully completed in 2050. Everything takes a long time. > ....might be too slow do address climate change. We're pissing in the wind when it comes to climate change at this point. > Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production. Those people are already free to try for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the Kalahari or Amazon, meanwhile most sensible commentators will note that there's pretty much a direct line between any metric that measures human prosperity and increased energy usage. There's no issue with increased energy use per-se, just the production methods that have externalities, such as burning fossil fuel (without subsequent capture).

imtringued 4y ago

>- Centralized power production is more vulnerable to war, social unrest and floods compared to distributed power production. Risks of social unrest and climate change is increasing. You forgot droughts. Low flow rates mean you cannot cool your giant thermal power plant without killing the entire river. So you must turn off your nuclear power plant. Geniuses then place the powerplant near oceans with predictable tsunami risks.