5 ms·

It’s power of the other kind driving this. Nuclear materials are controllable militarily and therefore nuclear power is controllable, and controlled by the exis

It’s power of the other kind driving this. Nuclear materials are controllable militarily and therefore nuclear power is controllable, and controlled by the existing geopolitical power structure. “We can supply your energy but we need to also provide a small military base to secure it. And don’t upset us or your lights go off” is very different to abundant and freely available

dhsofifnsk 3y ago
Peculiar to see this downvoted. Clearly nuclear inputs and outputs are restricted to Permitted Countries. Renewable energy inputs and hydrogen can be abundant and uncontrollable. The nuclear industries links to militarism are incontestable. Globally freely abundant energy cannot be solved unless you remove restrictions on nuclear inputs and outputs. If you retain control over them, maintain control over energy. This logic isn’t discussed either due to a lack of understanding geopolitics, or wilfully ignoring the power and control implicit in nuclear power most likely due to a preference for being part of that power structure
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Peculiar to see this downvoted. Solar cells are "controllable" too. They're just controlled by China.
  - ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
    There will be limited domestic support to invade someone over the manufacture of solar panels. The sun isn’t getting blocked by anyone either. Your point reinforces the parent — geopolitical control is the reason for nuclear investment due to an inability to compete on manufacturing. We rarely see the broader picture being discussed as the science and engineering is thought to dominate, but the problem is more geopolitical than people want to acknowledge. We will solve clean energy if and only if we don’t lose control
  - audunw 3y ago
    It wouldn’t be hard to replace China for solar cells. Especially if the west starts to shift investments and manpower away from fossil fuels.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      For some value of "wouldn't be hard", I suppose. The criticism is that nuclear plants take too long to build. Building fabs to crank out semiconductor grade silicon by the square kilometer isn't going to happen overnight. Not to mention that the process involves all manner of truly nasty chemicals and many tons of fresh water.
      - ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
        Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. This is the fundamental point, the US will avoid risking its hegemony ahead of burning the planet. And in order to do that all sorts of intellectualising needs to occur about why solar/wind/hydrogen is worse than nuclear when they provide a clean solution based on globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies.
        Turing_Machine 3y ago
        > Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. What if China decides to stop selling them to you? > globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies. Patent nonsense. Also, hydrogen is not an energy source to begin with. You have to use energy to make it.
        ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
        You’re reinforcing the point, right? That it’s geopolitical concerns that dominate here. If it will take a long time to transition to solar, you won’t be dependent on China tomorrow… And by simple I mean so fundamental a source of energy that five year olds can understand them, and they don’t require mining, radioactive waste management solutions, military control, or improved safety engineering to avoid yet more Chernobyl and Fukushima’s, not to mention they don’t provide targets for conventional weapon attacks to escalate into nuclear disasters…. Oh, and they’re decentralised/easy to deploy. Solar/Wind power are simple in those terms. And turning excess energy into hydrogen for storage is also relatively a imple but requires investment to improve the economics. But nuclear fanboys will fanboy because there is a fundamental power and control element as well as exciting physics involved. And that’s fine, as arguments go, it’s just frustrating to see simple solutions avoided for political reasons, and roadblocks put up to justify nuclear expansion and investment.

dhsofifnsk 3y ago

Peculiar to see this downvoted. Clearly nuclear inputs and outputs are restricted to Permitted Countries. Renewable energy inputs and hydrogen can be abundant and uncontrollable. The nuclear industries links to militarism are incontestable. Globally freely abundant energy cannot be solved unless you remove restrictions on nuclear inputs and outputs. If you retain control over them, maintain control over energy. This logic isn’t discussed either due to a lack of understanding geopolitics, or wilfully ignoring the power and control implicit in nuclear power most likely due to a preference for being part of that power structure

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Peculiar to see this downvoted. Solar cells are "controllable" too. They're just controlled by China.
- ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
  There will be limited domestic support to invade someone over the manufacture of solar panels. The sun isn’t getting blocked by anyone either. Your point reinforces the parent — geopolitical control is the reason for nuclear investment due to an inability to compete on manufacturing. We rarely see the broader picture being discussed as the science and engineering is thought to dominate, but the problem is more geopolitical than people want to acknowledge. We will solve clean energy if and only if we don’t lose control
- audunw 3y ago
  It wouldn’t be hard to replace China for solar cells. Especially if the west starts to shift investments and manpower away from fossil fuels.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    For some value of "wouldn't be hard", I suppose. The criticism is that nuclear plants take too long to build. Building fabs to crank out semiconductor grade silicon by the square kilometer isn't going to happen overnight. Not to mention that the process involves all manner of truly nasty chemicals and many tons of fresh water.
    - ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
      Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. This is the fundamental point, the US will avoid risking its hegemony ahead of burning the planet. And in order to do that all sorts of intellectualising needs to occur about why solar/wind/hydrogen is worse than nuclear when they provide a clean solution based on globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies.
      - Turing_Machine 3y ago
        > Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. What if China decides to stop selling them to you? > globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies. Patent nonsense. Also, hydrogen is not an energy source to begin with. You have to use energy to make it.
        ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
        You’re reinforcing the point, right? That it’s geopolitical concerns that dominate here. If it will take a long time to transition to solar, you won’t be dependent on China tomorrow… And by simple I mean so fundamental a source of energy that five year olds can understand them, and they don’t require mining, radioactive waste management solutions, military control, or improved safety engineering to avoid yet more Chernobyl and Fukushima’s, not to mention they don’t provide targets for conventional weapon attacks to escalate into nuclear disasters…. Oh, and they’re decentralised/easy to deploy. Solar/Wind power are simple in those terms. And turning excess energy into hydrogen for storage is also relatively a imple but requires investment to improve the economics. But nuclear fanboys will fanboy because there is a fundamental power and control element as well as exciting physics involved. And that’s fine, as arguments go, it’s just frustrating to see simple solutions avoided for political reasons, and roadblocks put up to justify nuclear expansion and investment.