4 ms·

We already have technologies to solve the climate crisis, among them nuclear fission. We have the technology and experience to build safe and clean fission plan

We already have technologies to solve the climate crisis, among them nuclear fission. We have the technology and experience to build safe and clean fission plants today, but we don't due to political and economic reasons. Politically, nuclear power is unpopular in most countries, including educated ones like the US and Germany. Economically, we do nothing to incentivize nuclear. Very few places have a meaningful carbon tax and (at least in the US) state laws regulate energy grids such that they provide price insurance to unstable energy sources, but prevent base load sources like nuclear from profiting when energy is scarce. Fusion solves none of these problems. If fusion technology were ready today, there would still be no political will or economic incentive to build fusion power plants. How do you reckon fusion would be a solution to the political problem of the climate crisis?

Balgair 4y ago
As far as I understand fusion, it's pretty much like fission but without any of the nasty nuclear waste or other problems. Sure, tritium ain't the most fun, but it's half life is a lot less than what the ol' Fukushimas dump out. Also, I thought that when things go wrong with fusion plants you get, like, maybe some really hot stuff dumping into a special wall or something. I don't know, sounds not the most fun, but bearable. This is as opposed to fission, where if things go wrong you get a reason the Soviet Union fell apart. So, knowing that tiny amount, I figure that more countries and their voters are on board with fusion, more so than with fission. Meaning that those pesky political problems are lessened and therefore we can reap the economic benefits that both fusion and fission give. But all that's beside the original point that tech does influence things positively. I was just using my little tiny bit of knowledge and pulling fusion out of thin air as an example.
- jaredklewis 4y ago
  Yea, I see what you're saying but it's not a good example. I don't imagine there aren't many good examples because I agree with the article's premise that tech really can't solve political issues. The existing resistance to fission based nuclear power is irrational. Fission is amazingly safe. If you add up all the deaths that have ever happened from nuclear mining, plant accidents, and fallout, you still have orders of magnitudes fewer deaths when compared deaths those from coal mining and plant accidents in the same period. And that's to say nothing of deaths related to pollution caused by coal. I think the perfect proof that the resistance to nuclear is irrational is the drastic effect three mile island incident had on the public opinion of nuclear power. You had a nuclear meltdown (basically the worst thing that can happen at a nuclear plant) with with no deaths, no fallout, and and it basically turned the majority of the US public against nuclear power. Meanwhile in 1979, a 144 miners died coal mining. Even for the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened (Chernobyl), estimates of the death toll including all fallout related deaths (cancers after the fact) are only for several hundred. But in the 1980s (when Chernobyl occurred), a hundred miners died every year in coal mining accidents. So if people today are against nuclear because of safety concerns, even when by any conceivable metric it is safer than existing alternatives, why is everyone suddenly going to become rational about fusion? Won't the same irrational beliefs that turn people against fission turn them against fusion?

Balgair 4y ago

As far as I understand fusion, it's pretty much like fission but without any of the nasty nuclear waste or other problems. Sure, tritium ain't the most fun, but it's half life is a lot less than what the ol' Fukushimas dump out. Also, I thought that when things go wrong with fusion plants you get, like, maybe some really hot stuff dumping into a special wall or something. I don't know, sounds not the most fun, but bearable. This is as opposed to fission, where if things go wrong you get a reason the Soviet Union fell apart. So, knowing that tiny amount, I figure that more countries and their voters are on board with fusion, more so than with fission. Meaning that those pesky political problems are lessened and therefore we can reap the economic benefits that both fusion and fission give. But all that's beside the original point that tech does influence things positively. I was just using my little tiny bit of knowledge and pulling fusion out of thin air as an example.

jaredklewis 4y ago
Yea, I see what you're saying but it's not a good example. I don't imagine there aren't many good examples because I agree with the article's premise that tech really can't solve political issues. The existing resistance to fission based nuclear power is irrational. Fission is amazingly safe. If you add up all the deaths that have ever happened from nuclear mining, plant accidents, and fallout, you still have orders of magnitudes fewer deaths when compared deaths those from coal mining and plant accidents in the same period. And that's to say nothing of deaths related to pollution caused by coal. I think the perfect proof that the resistance to nuclear is irrational is the drastic effect three mile island incident had on the public opinion of nuclear power. You had a nuclear meltdown (basically the worst thing that can happen at a nuclear plant) with with no deaths, no fallout, and and it basically turned the majority of the US public against nuclear power. Meanwhile in 1979, a 144 miners died coal mining. Even for the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened (Chernobyl), estimates of the death toll including all fallout related deaths (cancers after the fact) are only for several hundred. But in the 1980s (when Chernobyl occurred), a hundred miners died every year in coal mining accidents. So if people today are against nuclear because of safety concerns, even when by any conceivable metric it is safer than existing alternatives, why is everyone suddenly going to become rational about fusion? Won't the same irrational beliefs that turn people against fission turn them against fusion?