4 ms·

> 30 degrees C is uncomfortable, -20 is another level I really think heated clothing will gain ground. As for air conditioning its typical use is in sync with

> 30 degrees C is uncomfortable, -20 is another level I really think heated clothing will gain ground. As for air conditioning its typical use is in sync with solar-panel production. > Nuclear > focusing on efficiency during construction and operation In France and the US results of real efforts towards this show how difficult it is. >> NIMBY effect. > This would absolutely require some education/propaganda efforts by governments and other authorities I doubt so, because the root cause is here a lack of trust, for many in governments and authorities, and for some even to the very underlying technical system (most "solutions" leading to worse problems). > similar to the kind of education being done for climate change. I doubt so, because climate change is perceptible, therefore the message is "See? We have a problem! Nearly all scientists say that fossil fuel use is a prominent cause and we all can do something about it" is way more easy than, after many blunders of all kinds and in every field, touting "We, the gov, checked this nuclear thing. It is above the adequate level of safety, so let's optimize in order to quickly build many reactors". It may be true (even if I doubt so) but this is IMHO out of the current Overton window scope. > harm done by coal Yes, avoiding any "manufacturing of consent". > tax on coal power Yes, there is reason to accept that some can use it without compensating for bad externalities. > let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear. Yes.

trashtester 4y ago
> I really think heated clothing will gain ground. Maybe, but it seems dystopian to me to have to rely on that in your own home. In places like Norway, where there is plenty of clean energy, I don't think the population will be willing to go there. Yesterday, our prime minister declared that current energy prices are not viable. The labour movement and farmer organizations (and many others) are demanding that Norway pulls out of ACER, or renegotiates the agreement. During the summer, the problem is not so great, and given the situation in Ukraine, nothing will happen right now. But I would be surprised if some "solution" hasn't been found before December. https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/raseri-mot-hoye-strompriser-na-ma-regjeringen-komme-pa-banen/s/12-95-3424245345 https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/raseri-mot-hoye-stromprise... > In France and the US results of real efforts towards this show how difficult it is. Again, I already consider France to have achieved success, they just need to keep it up. > I doubt so, because the root cause is here a lack of trust, This varies from country to country. Scandinavia and parts of northern Europe has traditionally had relatively high trust in government. In other places, governments have no such authority. In both cases, trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables (for instance by underestimating the need and/or cost of storage) is dangerous, as it can cause long term harm to this trust relationship. Similarly for nuclear, if there is a meltdown that kills thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in a plant the government claims to be "safe", trust is broken. If there is a minor incident, the population needs to be educated about the real effects. > It may be true (even if I doubt so) but this is IMHO out of the current Overton window scope. This is a good point, and just as important is that most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist is ruling at any time. Having this discussion on Twitter, for instance, is basically useless. At least here on HN, even the people with another opinion will argue more from reason than pure emotion or partisanship. Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population. To add complication, in the general population, there is even a risk that there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows. If enough people lose trust in official government sources, one can end up in scenarios where the majority ends up believing things that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. (And this can happen on both sides, simultaneously, for different topics.) And here is one of my fears. I'm generally supportive of investments in renewables, but I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good" to politicians, the weaknesses of such projects will eventually become obvious to the population. And the more some source of authority has tried to downplay such weaknesses, the more likely it will be to get a reaction in the opposite direction. In other words, if huge investments are put into wind power, and the technology doesn't deliver what is promised, there can be a huge backlash that leads to countries starting to build more coal power plants instead of tearing them down. > Yes, avoiding any "manufacturing of consent". In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent. The scientific debate needs to be free. As for the general public, some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial, but as I wrote above, it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible) and that it delivers on predictions (or, if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions). > > let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear. > Yes. :)
- natmaka 4y ago
  > Norway pulls out of ACER, or renegotiates the agreement > I would be surprised if some "solution" hasn't been found before December. This is indeed highly probable and could boost efforts towards a larger cooperation, relieving the burden of 1-to-1 relationships by diffusing risks. > I already consider France to have achieved success, they just need to keep it up We (I'm French) try hard, but couldn't adequately built any new reactor since 1999. >> the root cause is here a lack of trust, > This varies from country to country. Scandinavia and parts of northern Europe has traditionally had relatively high trust in government. In other places, governments have no such authority. Indeed, however it seems to me that the level of trust gets lower even in those nations(?). See local 'Pirate Party' > trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables > can cause long term harm to this trust relationship. Indeed, but on this very account trust on nuclear was already dented because many don't see past accidents as 'minor'. This may be wrong, but they sure don't want to be exposed to such risk. > most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist This is a sure way for them to be able to communicate with the electorate, a necessary way to be elected. > Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population. Indeed, however the case at hand is difficult to settle even among them because there are reasons to think that 'renewables' can be sufficient, and therefore to prefer avoiding problems raised by nuclear (risk, waste, dependency to uranium, daunting decommissions...), reasons to think that the level of risk associated to nuclear plants is higher than estimated or would become intolerable if we build many of them... > there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows There are! And the integrated window defines the very limited spectrum were politicians seeking power are constrained. > If enough people lose trust in official government sources, one can end up in scenarios where the majority ends up believing things that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge Indeed. Worse: even fully-gov-trusting people can err (or be fooled) this way. There is no sure source clearlyu indicating what is preferrable, or even (esp. outside of pure mathematics) what is really 'true'. > I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good" > if huge investments are put into wind power, and the technology doesn't deliver what is promised, there can be a huge backlash that leads to countries starting to build more coal power plants The risk is real. However since the 2000's the objective reality is "huge investments were put into nuclear, and the technology doesn't deliver what was promised..." > In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent > some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial I highly doubt so, as it will be quickly distorted (even non deliberately: 'an end justifies any means') > it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible) In theory it can be done, but I'm not aware of any historical success. > if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions This induces a tension with the necessary 'motivation'. Politicians avoid "maybe" along with "let's go!".

trashtester 4y ago

> I really think heated clothing will gain ground. Maybe, but it seems dystopian to me to have to rely on that in your own home. In places like Norway, where there is plenty of clean energy, I don't think the population will be willing to go there. Yesterday, our prime minister declared that current energy prices are not viable. The labour movement and farmer organizations (and many others) are demanding that Norway pulls out of ACER, or renegotiates the agreement. During the summer, the problem is not so great, and given the situation in Ukraine, nothing will happen right now. But I would be surprised if some "solution" hasn't been found before December. https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/raseri-mot-hoye-strompriser-na-ma-regjeringen-komme-pa-banen/s/12-95-3424245345 https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/raseri-mot-hoye-stromprise... > In France and the US results of real efforts towards this show how difficult it is. Again, I already consider France to have achieved success, they just need to keep it up. > I doubt so, because the root cause is here a lack of trust, This varies from country to country. Scandinavia and parts of northern Europe has traditionally had relatively high trust in government. In other places, governments have no such authority. In both cases, trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables (for instance by underestimating the need and/or cost of storage) is dangerous, as it can cause long term harm to this trust relationship. Similarly for nuclear, if there is a meltdown that kills thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in a plant the government claims to be "safe", trust is broken. If there is a minor incident, the population needs to be educated about the real effects. > It may be true (even if I doubt so) but this is IMHO out of the current Overton window scope. This is a good point, and just as important is that most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist is ruling at any time. Having this discussion on Twitter, for instance, is basically useless. At least here on HN, even the people with another opinion will argue more from reason than pure emotion or partisanship. Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population. To add complication, in the general population, there is even a risk that there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows. If enough people lose trust in official government sources, one can end up in scenarios where the majority ends up believing things that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. (And this can happen on both sides, simultaneously, for different topics.) And here is one of my fears. I'm generally supportive of investments in renewables, but I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good" to politicians, the weaknesses of such projects will eventually become obvious to the population. And the more some source of authority has tried to downplay such weaknesses, the more likely it will be to get a reaction in the opposite direction. In other words, if huge investments are put into wind power, and the technology doesn't deliver what is promised, there can be a huge backlash that leads to countries starting to build more coal power plants instead of tearing them down. > Yes, avoiding any "manufacturing of consent". In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent. The scientific debate needs to be free. As for the general public, some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial, but as I wrote above, it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible) and that it delivers on predictions (or, if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions). > > let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear. > Yes. :)

natmaka 4y ago
> Norway pulls out of ACER, or renegotiates the agreement > I would be surprised if some "solution" hasn't been found before December. This is indeed highly probable and could boost efforts towards a larger cooperation, relieving the burden of 1-to-1 relationships by diffusing risks. > I already consider France to have achieved success, they just need to keep it up We (I'm French) try hard, but couldn't adequately built any new reactor since 1999. >> the root cause is here a lack of trust, > This varies from country to country. Scandinavia and parts of northern Europe has traditionally had relatively high trust in government. In other places, governments have no such authority. Indeed, however it seems to me that the level of trust gets lower even in those nations(?). See local 'Pirate Party' > trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables > can cause long term harm to this trust relationship. Indeed, but on this very account trust on nuclear was already dented because many don't see past accidents as 'minor'. This may be wrong, but they sure don't want to be exposed to such risk. > most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist This is a sure way for them to be able to communicate with the electorate, a necessary way to be elected. > Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population. Indeed, however the case at hand is difficult to settle even among them because there are reasons to think that 'renewables' can be sufficient, and therefore to prefer avoiding problems raised by nuclear (risk, waste, dependency to uranium, daunting decommissions...), reasons to think that the level of risk associated to nuclear plants is higher than estimated or would become intolerable if we build many of them... > there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows There are! And the integrated window defines the very limited spectrum were politicians seeking power are constrained. > If enough people lose trust in official government sources, one can end up in scenarios where the majority ends up believing things that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge Indeed. Worse: even fully-gov-trusting people can err (or be fooled) this way. There is no sure source clearlyu indicating what is preferrable, or even (esp. outside of pure mathematics) what is really 'true'. > I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good" > if huge investments are put into wind power, and the technology doesn't deliver what is promised, there can be a huge backlash that leads to countries starting to build more coal power plants The risk is real. However since the 2000's the objective reality is "huge investments were put into nuclear, and the technology doesn't deliver what was promised..." > In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent > some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial I highly doubt so, as it will be quickly distorted (even non deliberately: 'an end justifies any means') > it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible) In theory it can be done, but I'm not aware of any historical success. > if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions This induces a tension with the necessary 'motivation'. Politicians avoid "maybe" along with "let's go!".