3 ms·

Wind power is nice, but the key is nuclear power, which covers 35% of Finland's needs already and that number is going to go up once they fully ramp up Olkiluot

Wind power is nice, but the key is nuclear power, which covers 35% of Finland's needs already and that number is going to go up once they fully ramp up Olkiluoto 3. Unfortunately it also took around 17 years to build the thing, so this playbook is not going to be particularly useful to anybody else who needs to wean themselves off Russian energy now.

roenxi 4y ago
> ...so this playbook is not going to be particularly useful to anybody else who needs to wean themselves off Russian energy now. At some point, stubborn commitment to terrible policy can't be recovered from. But it is nevertheless always a good time to admit wrong and start working to correct mistakes. It would be very wise to admit that the Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security for decades now and that really needs to change. If we want to be in a good spot 17 years from now we need to start ASAP. And people could probably also get some nuclear plants built in less than 17 years if they demanded that they be an order of magnitude safer than coal plants/gas rather than the absurdist standards that are presently applied.
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  >> stubborn commitment to terrible policy Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”? >> Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security By security you mean self sufficiency? The opposite of stopping further world wars by opening global trade? The idea a world historically proven to relish excuses for killing each other, would have been better served by following the ideals of self sufficiency rather than trade, it just doesn’t really hold up to any inspection. Are there any exceptions to the rule globally that conflict deaths decrease as trade intensity increases? Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency (and consequently a loss of skills - which was counter intuitive to me but easily researched since it doesn’t appear to be a disputed finding as far as i can see).
  - Paradigma11 4y ago
    The policy was called "Wandel durch Handel" ie Change trough Trade.
  - jabl 4y ago
    > Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”? Trade between like-minded nations is awesome; the EU itself largely has its origins in a wish to avoid yet another disastrous world war between Germany and neighbors. And by all accounts it has succeeded in that. However, becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief. As we can see in Europe today. > Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency If you read e.g. Tainters Collapse (which AFAIK is nowadays the largely accepted explanation of why ancient civilizations collapsed), it's a bit more subtle than that. (Obviously post-collapse the survivors will go back to a much more self-sufficient way of life.)
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      >> becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief I’m struggling to reconcile that take on events with a desire for thawing hostilities and mutual prosperity. How could you seek to develop and grow mutual prosperity while deliberately holding back local industry so as not to become interdependent? There’s 2 ways to avoid cognitive dissonance here that i can see: 1. “Nice doggy but i won’t put down my stick” - you think they’re morons. You say publicaly that Bi-lateral trade will bring us all closer together but privately you tell your industries to reject growth beyond the point where it incurs dependence on Russia and you expect Russia to accept this asymmetry unquestioningly [EDIT: clarity] 2. Mutual prosperity was never an option, better we had arrived at conflict sooner and never entertained welcoming Russia in to the global economy If it’s option 2 then we’re back to how do you stop people killing each other then if not through trade? >> it's a bit more subtle than that Subtle seems like the wrong choice of word. Complex perhaps? It’s certainly more complex but nothing i said contradicts Tainter’s view.
      - 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

> ...so this playbook is not going to be particularly useful to anybody else who needs to wean themselves off Russian energy now. At some point, stubborn commitment to terrible policy can't be recovered from. But it is nevertheless always a good time to admit wrong and start working to correct mistakes. It would be very wise to admit that the Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security for decades now and that really needs to change. If we want to be in a good spot 17 years from now we need to start ASAP. And people could probably also get some nuclear plants built in less than 17 years if they demanded that they be an order of magnitude safer than coal plants/gas rather than the absurdist standards that are presently applied.

CraigJPerry 4y ago
>> stubborn commitment to terrible policy Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”? >> Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security By security you mean self sufficiency? The opposite of stopping further world wars by opening global trade? The idea a world historically proven to relish excuses for killing each other, would have been better served by following the ideals of self sufficiency rather than trade, it just doesn’t really hold up to any inspection. Are there any exceptions to the rule globally that conflict deaths decrease as trade intensity increases? Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency (and consequently a loss of skills - which was counter intuitive to me but easily researched since it doesn’t appear to be a disputed finding as far as i can see).
- Paradigma11 4y ago
  The policy was called "Wandel durch Handel" ie Change trough Trade.
- jabl 4y ago
  > Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”? Trade between like-minded nations is awesome; the EU itself largely has its origins in a wish to avoid yet another disastrous world war between Germany and neighbors. And by all accounts it has succeeded in that. However, becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief. As we can see in Europe today. > Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency If you read e.g. Tainters Collapse (which AFAIK is nowadays the largely accepted explanation of why ancient civilizations collapsed), it's a bit more subtle than that. (Obviously post-collapse the survivors will go back to a much more self-sufficient way of life.)
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    >> becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief I’m struggling to reconcile that take on events with a desire for thawing hostilities and mutual prosperity. How could you seek to develop and grow mutual prosperity while deliberately holding back local industry so as not to become interdependent? There’s 2 ways to avoid cognitive dissonance here that i can see: 1. “Nice doggy but i won’t put down my stick” - you think they’re morons. You say publicaly that Bi-lateral trade will bring us all closer together but privately you tell your industries to reject growth beyond the point where it incurs dependence on Russia and you expect Russia to accept this asymmetry unquestioningly [EDIT: clarity] 2. Mutual prosperity was never an option, better we had arrived at conflict sooner and never entertained welcoming Russia in to the global economy If it’s option 2 then we’re back to how do you stop people killing each other then if not through trade? >> it's a bit more subtle than that Subtle seems like the wrong choice of word. Complex perhaps? It’s certainly more complex but nothing i said contradicts Tainter’s view.
    - 4y ago