4 ms·

My disillusionment with the promises of nuclear actually came from hearing a professor of nuclear energy speak. He himself was brilliant and staunchly pro-nucle

My disillusionment with the promises of nuclear actually came from hearing a professor of nuclear energy speak. He himself was brilliant and staunchly pro-nuclear, but his rhetoric turned me off it, probably forever. Here's what happened: He was holding a presentation on nuclear power and mentioned safety, claiming that according to the best models there would be one large nuclear accident every million years. This was shortly after Fukishima, and counting that along with three mile island and Chernobyl, it's clear that the actual number is closer to every twenty years. To have someone with a higher IQ than me talk about a model off by a factor of 50 000 and indicate no need to update it tells me this is an industry with way too much kool-aid. My low opinion was solidified when in the same year I overheard a nuclear proponent criticizing Japanese 'housewives' who had the temerity to get their own Geiger counters after Fukishima and note when radiation levels passed the official guidelines in their area. I'm sorry, but if you're against a citizenry informing itself you're against democracy, and the industry you advocate for is going to take a hit by association with you. You might say that these two examples aren't representative of the industry as a whole, but they're the representatives I met and I've yet to see a good counterexample. A couple other criticisms: -Refining nuclear material for peaceful purposes does make it easier to refine it for less peaceful ones. This is probably the source of the 'fear' you're referring to. -Nuclear is nonrenewable, fissionable material will run out in time like fossil fuels -focusing on EROI hides the cost of capital, which is substantial. Investing in nuclear requires a huge concentration of capital and risk. Capital isn't free, something the economic arguments for Nuclear tend to gloss over. -I don't see how that much concentration of capital and hence payback can avoid increasing wealth inequality. With solar there's a plausible and peaceful way for the poorest people to eventually own the means of production - not a share where their votes don't count but the physical tool that creates energy. That can't happen with a nuclear economy, it will always be owned by an elite, managed by an elite, and leave most people as unimportant economic actors. -Pro-nuclear arguments frequently insult the opposition. It gives a bad impression.

z3c0 4y ago
So your critique of nuclear energy (a position) is somebody who over-zealously evangelized the technology (their character)? This is about as ad hominem as stances come.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  I also have all the practical concerns I put in bullet form at the end of my post. The characters I met in the nuclear lobby just motivated me to think about it.
- axus 4y ago
  Sort of like arguing that Trump and his supporters would make a bad president, based only on the crazy things they say
  - z3c0 4y ago
    No, it is not, and I'll go so far as to suggest that you actually know that but are choosing to misrepresent the perspective (aka a strawman fallacy). The value of a politician is very much measured by the nature of their rhetoric, and it's very often not indicative of their underlying character. To point out deliberately vitriolic rhetoric in politics is not an ad hominem. To say that Trump was a bad president because he's a misogynistic egoist would be an ad hominem, no matter how true it is.
user_7832 4y ago
> He was holding a presentation on nuclear power and mentioned safety, claiming that according to the best models there would be one large nuclear accident every million years. This part reminds me of how NASA's calculations for crashes/failures were very low, like 1 in a million officially, but when casually asked most engineers estimated it at 1 in a few/one hundred (my memory is fuzzy) - which was about the actual rate of crashes. Humans, even smart ones, have biases unfortunately. (I personally still think nuclear is the best, even if we end up with ~3 more medium accidents in the 21st century.)
93po 4y ago
> -Nuclear is nonrenewable, fissionable material will run out in time like fossil fuels There are enough raw materials to run breeder-style reactors for literally billions of years
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  I'm talking about existing nuclear technology here. there's enough hydrogen to run fusion reactors for billions of years too.
panick21_ 4y ago
> -Refining nuclear material for peaceful purposes does make it easier to refine it for less peaceful ones. This is probably the source of the 'fear' you're referring to. This is mostly a non issue as nations who want to make nuclear weapons have far better pathways to getting to what they want. In fact, you can as a nation build nuclear reactors from the ground up and never develop the technology to make weapons grade material. > -Nuclear is nonrenewable, fissionable material will run out in time like fossil fuels By that logic, solar is also of that material, you realize that? The reality is uranium and thorium are incredibly common. We could use it for 1000s of years and we would not even remotly run out. In addition, if you want to talk 'renewable', volcanic activity is constantly circulating new thorium out of the earth and thorium is part of why the internal of our earth is hot. So basically, running out of thorium and uranium is about as likely as running out of sunlight. If we ever run out of either, we are basically fucked. > -focusing on EROI hides the cost of capital, which is substantial. Investing in nuclear requires a huge concentration of capital and risk. Capital isn't free, something the economic arguments for Nuclear tend to gloss over. Governments can get capital on 30+ year bonds for 2% yield. Modern nuclear plants can operate for 80 years. So you could likely issue special bonds that pay for 80 years. Given how long these plants stick around, its actually really low capital, specially if you are building many plants. And even more so if you are building next generation plants that have far lower capital cost. > -I don't see how that much concentration of capital and hence payback can avoid increasing wealth inequality. Not sure how that makes sense. Nuclear reactors own by the government provide quite a few high paying jobs (in France all union) that give jobs and whole generation of families a good income. > With solar there's a plausible and peaceful way for the poorest people to eventually own the means of production I think this is fantasy illusion. Poor people don't own enough land to put up solar. How will they own their own solar. Solar requires own or renting of land. In reality poor people will have access to some kind of place they can plug into and get power for money. And solar or nuclear makes no difference. > That can't happen with a nuclear economy, it will always be owned by an elite, managed by an elite, and leave most people as unimportant economic actors. So French nuclear reactor owned by the government that have given people a long term contract for really cheap access to electricity 'are owned by elites'? > -Pro-nuclear arguments frequently insult the opposition. It gives a bad impression. Sounds like confirmation bias. If you argue with people you will get insults. I have been insulted often by people who don't like nuclear. Online discourse is not representative of the real world. I can link you to some debates between 'experts' where the renewable guy was incredibly rude and the nuclear guy was incredibly accommodating. Generally actual nuclear people are incredibly technocratic in their speech.

z3c0 4y ago

So your critique of nuclear energy (a position) is somebody who over-zealously evangelized the technology (their character)? This is about as ad hominem as stances come.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
I also have all the practical concerns I put in bullet form at the end of my post. The characters I met in the nuclear lobby just motivated me to think about it.
axus 4y ago
Sort of like arguing that Trump and his supporters would make a bad president, based only on the crazy things they say
- z3c0 4y ago
  No, it is not, and I'll go so far as to suggest that you actually know that but are choosing to misrepresent the perspective (aka a strawman fallacy). The value of a politician is very much measured by the nature of their rhetoric, and it's very often not indicative of their underlying character. To point out deliberately vitriolic rhetoric in politics is not an ad hominem. To say that Trump was a bad president because he's a misogynistic egoist would be an ad hominem, no matter how true it is.

user_7832 4y ago

> He was holding a presentation on nuclear power and mentioned safety, claiming that according to the best models there would be one large nuclear accident every million years. This part reminds me of how NASA's calculations for crashes/failures were very low, like 1 in a million officially, but when casually asked most engineers estimated it at 1 in a few/one hundred (my memory is fuzzy) - which was about the actual rate of crashes. Humans, even smart ones, have biases unfortunately. (I personally still think nuclear is the best, even if we end up with ~3 more medium accidents in the 21st century.)

93po 4y ago

> -Nuclear is nonrenewable, fissionable material will run out in time like fossil fuels There are enough raw materials to run breeder-style reactors for literally billions of years

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
I'm talking about existing nuclear technology here. there's enough hydrogen to run fusion reactors for billions of years too.

panick21_ 4y ago

> -Refining nuclear material for peaceful purposes does make it easier to refine it for less peaceful ones. This is probably the source of the 'fear' you're referring to. This is mostly a non issue as nations who want to make nuclear weapons have far better pathways to getting to what they want. In fact, you can as a nation build nuclear reactors from the ground up and never develop the technology to make weapons grade material. > -Nuclear is nonrenewable, fissionable material will run out in time like fossil fuels By that logic, solar is also of that material, you realize that? The reality is uranium and thorium are incredibly common. We could use it for 1000s of years and we would not even remotly run out. In addition, if you want to talk 'renewable', volcanic activity is constantly circulating new thorium out of the earth and thorium is part of why the internal of our earth is hot. So basically, running out of thorium and uranium is about as likely as running out of sunlight. If we ever run out of either, we are basically fucked. > -focusing on EROI hides the cost of capital, which is substantial. Investing in nuclear requires a huge concentration of capital and risk. Capital isn't free, something the economic arguments for Nuclear tend to gloss over. Governments can get capital on 30+ year bonds for 2% yield. Modern nuclear plants can operate for 80 years. So you could likely issue special bonds that pay for 80 years. Given how long these plants stick around, its actually really low capital, specially if you are building many plants. And even more so if you are building next generation plants that have far lower capital cost. > -I don't see how that much concentration of capital and hence payback can avoid increasing wealth inequality. Not sure how that makes sense. Nuclear reactors own by the government provide quite a few high paying jobs (in France all union) that give jobs and whole generation of families a good income. > With solar there's a plausible and peaceful way for the poorest people to eventually own the means of production I think this is fantasy illusion. Poor people don't own enough land to put up solar. How will they own their own solar. Solar requires own or renting of land. In reality poor people will have access to some kind of place they can plug into and get power for money. And solar or nuclear makes no difference. > That can't happen with a nuclear economy, it will always be owned by an elite, managed by an elite, and leave most people as unimportant economic actors. So French nuclear reactor owned by the government that have given people a long term contract for really cheap access to electricity 'are owned by elites'? > -Pro-nuclear arguments frequently insult the opposition. It gives a bad impression. Sounds like confirmation bias. If you argue with people you will get insults. I have been insulted often by people who don't like nuclear. Online discourse is not representative of the real world. I can link you to some debates between 'experts' where the renewable guy was incredibly rude and the nuclear guy was incredibly accommodating. Generally actual nuclear people are incredibly technocratic in their speech.