3 ms·

> -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 ref

> -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.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
There's a lot here, so I'll just focus on the part that lets me raise my preferred talking point. >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. There are farmers in Afghanistan and India right now that find pumping water with solar panels more economical than diesel pumps. Nobody is going to build an access point for these kinds of places to plug into electricity from a nuclear plant, they're that poor. And yet, solar technology is allowing them to increase their production today. Nuclear is too large and unwieldy to do much in marginal cases like that. At best it would provide cheap energy so subsistence farmers can get more handouts from an industrial center, but there's no way of increasing margins/ownership of the poorest. The optimistic Nuclear vision sees to be one of industrialism perfected, an age of Big Everything. But the world isn't moving to better industrialism, it's moving to postindustrialism. Solar is postindustrial, it's proven in rural Afghanistan because it's cheap and distributed and empowering. Even in a place where a $100 for a panel is a huge investment, it's often worth it when locals have small electricity requirements like charging mobile phones. That's the kind of poverty where solar is a technology that can help today, no central planning needed. Which IMNSHO is a very good good thing if the planning would be done based on models off by factors of 50 000. TL;DR: Good Postindustrialism > Better Industrialism.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  The waste majority of humanity is living in urban places. Experience of Afghani subsistence farmer is interesting but not actually that relevant. Unban living will continue to exist and industralism will not simply go away as long as > industrialism perfected, an age of Big Everything No, nuclear plants are not actually that big. They serve a gigantic community and the building themselves are tiny and almost inadvisable compared to how much energy they make. When you are driving threw Germany, you are always aware of the wind power, of the solar and in some region of the coal. In France you barley ever see a nuclear reactor.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago

There's a lot here, so I'll just focus on the part that lets me raise my preferred talking point. >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. There are farmers in Afghanistan and India right now that find pumping water with solar panels more economical than diesel pumps. Nobody is going to build an access point for these kinds of places to plug into electricity from a nuclear plant, they're that poor. And yet, solar technology is allowing them to increase their production today. Nuclear is too large and unwieldy to do much in marginal cases like that. At best it would provide cheap energy so subsistence farmers can get more handouts from an industrial center, but there's no way of increasing margins/ownership of the poorest. The optimistic Nuclear vision sees to be one of industrialism perfected, an age of Big Everything. But the world isn't moving to better industrialism, it's moving to postindustrialism. Solar is postindustrial, it's proven in rural Afghanistan because it's cheap and distributed and empowering. Even in a place where a $100 for a panel is a huge investment, it's often worth it when locals have small electricity requirements like charging mobile phones. That's the kind of poverty where solar is a technology that can help today, no central planning needed. Which IMNSHO is a very good good thing if the planning would be done based on models off by factors of 50 000. TL;DR: Good Postindustrialism > Better Industrialism.

panick21_ 4y ago
The waste majority of humanity is living in urban places. Experience of Afghani subsistence farmer is interesting but not actually that relevant. Unban living will continue to exist and industralism will not simply go away as long as > industrialism perfected, an age of Big Everything No, nuclear plants are not actually that big. They serve a gigantic community and the building themselves are tiny and almost inadvisable compared to how much energy they make. When you are driving threw Germany, you are always aware of the wind power, of the solar and in some region of the coal. In France you barley ever see a nuclear reactor.