5 ms·

This is wonderful and I’m looking forward to reading the whole thing. Even just at the beginning I appreciate the mention of nuclear versus solar as a question

This is wonderful and I’m looking forward to reading the whole thing. Even just at the beginning I appreciate the mention of nuclear versus solar as a question of democracy versus authoritarianism. I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not. This has long term implications for the society that relies on one versus the other. Entire regions would be tied to supply chains that might require their participation in certain political agreements. This is not automatically a bad thing, but when considering broad strategies between nuclear versus solar, I think it is important to consider. Technologies that allow more political freedom to break bonds as needs arise are more democratic than technologies which require the maintenance of powerful monolithic authorities.

keiferski 3y ago
> I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not. This has long term implications for the society that relies on one versus the other. Great minds think alike? ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931314 I agree that this seems to be an under-discussed aspect of energy policy. Which is odd, because it seems widely agreed that oil and politics are very, very interlinked.
- aebtebeten 3y ago
  One of the lines of thinking which led to 1984: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/you-and-the-atom-bomb/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... > oil and politics are ... interlinked Due to Stalingrad blocking the way to the Caucasus (and eventually Iraq?), Hitler discovered the iron law of 20th century warfare: "No Oil, No Blitz" (无油无闪?) (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue ) During the heyday of the British Empire, the Royal Navy ruled the waves with renewable energy, and needed to put into port mostly for things like food and fresh water. Since Suez, the US Navy has waived the rules (exception to COLREGS: "if it's gray, stay away") but a majority of its fleet would degenerate to a "fleet in being" without oil. This is what the world looks like to the USN; can you spot Hormuz? The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port? https://www.seattleaquarium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Spilhaus-map.jpg https://www.seattleaquarium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/S...
credit_guy 3y ago
> nuclear versus solar as a question of democracy versus authoritarianism This is the first time I encounter this argument. To me it sounds more like confirmation bias: you are antinuclear; this is a very emotional thing, and any argument against nuclear energy sounds very good. > one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it Yes, but so do most industrial processes nowadays. The computer I'm writing this on would be impossible without a powerful state to protect its manufacturer, and the manufacturers of all the components that went into making it. Yet, I doubt you think computers are inherently linked to authoritarian regimes, and democracies should resort to pen and paper.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Well maybe they would start thinking about that linkage now that you’ve mentioned it?
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    The linkage between computers and authoritarianism?
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Yes.
- schneems 3y ago
  The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”. Which I think it argues very successfully. So either you’re arguing that “no, artifacts do not have politics” which I don’t think you’ve done well. Or you would like to show that nuclear does not have the result of making a society more authoritarian. Which you’ve not done. Or you could concede that “yes, this tech makes things more authoritarian” but go on to argue that it’s not by much and it’s worth it if a good trade off. This would be your best option but you’ve picked a technology with a mocking counter example, thus undermining that possible argument. If you feel you made a strong argument for something I didn’t list, then I’m curious to hear what exactly you’re trying to argue and why you believe your comment supports that argument.
franga2000 3y ago
Every centralised resource requires a powerful entity to protect it. Something like a massive damn for hydro power is also a great target for a state's enemies and requires its protection. And if we consider not the inherent potential danger but also the danger of taking away a major power source, any centralised power generation - even massive wind and solar farms - needs such protection. And that isn't even looking at the political side of this - this asserts that a powerful state is necessarily authoritarian, which is complete nonsense. Some of the most powerful countries right now aren't authoritarian (not saying they're perfect democracies, but some are pretty ok compared to the worst we have) and the "most democratic" countries have right now are all powerful enough to keep their nuclear power safe (or could if they had it). It's also not a given that a powerful state is a bad thing. Weak democratic states make it possible for authoritarian regimes to take control. And even without that, weak states are usually ridden with crime and poverty, whereas strong states have the ability to level inequalities and prevent crime) - all without the need to be authoritarian. Oh, and let's not forget that the only reason we have cheap solar power in the first place is because they're produced by modern slaves in fully authoritarian countries with zero regard for human safety or the environment.

keiferski 3y ago

> I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not. This has long term implications for the society that relies on one versus the other. Great minds think alike? ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931314 I agree that this seems to be an under-discussed aspect of energy policy. Which is odd, because it seems widely agreed that oil and politics are very, very interlinked.

aebtebeten 3y ago
One of the lines of thinking which led to 1984: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/you-and-the-atom-bomb/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... > oil and politics are ... interlinked Due to Stalingrad blocking the way to the Caucasus (and eventually Iraq?), Hitler discovered the iron law of 20th century warfare: "No Oil, No Blitz" (无油无闪?) (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue ) During the heyday of the British Empire, the Royal Navy ruled the waves with renewable energy, and needed to put into port mostly for things like food and fresh water. Since Suez, the US Navy has waived the rules (exception to COLREGS: "if it's gray, stay away") but a majority of its fleet would degenerate to a "fleet in being" without oil. This is what the world looks like to the USN; can you spot Hormuz? The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port? https://www.seattleaquarium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Spilhaus-map.jpg https://www.seattleaquarium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/S...

credit_guy 3y ago

> nuclear versus solar as a question of democracy versus authoritarianism This is the first time I encounter this argument. To me it sounds more like confirmation bias: you are antinuclear; this is a very emotional thing, and any argument against nuclear energy sounds very good. > one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it Yes, but so do most industrial processes nowadays. The computer I'm writing this on would be impossible without a powerful state to protect its manufacturer, and the manufacturers of all the components that went into making it. Yet, I doubt you think computers are inherently linked to authoritarian regimes, and democracies should resort to pen and paper.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Well maybe they would start thinking about that linkage now that you’ve mentioned it?
- credit_guy 3y ago
  The linkage between computers and authoritarianism?
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Yes.
schneems 3y ago
The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”. Which I think it argues very successfully. So either you’re arguing that “no, artifacts do not have politics” which I don’t think you’ve done well. Or you would like to show that nuclear does not have the result of making a society more authoritarian. Which you’ve not done. Or you could concede that “yes, this tech makes things more authoritarian” but go on to argue that it’s not by much and it’s worth it if a good trade off. This would be your best option but you’ve picked a technology with a mocking counter example, thus undermining that possible argument. If you feel you made a strong argument for something I didn’t list, then I’m curious to hear what exactly you’re trying to argue and why you believe your comment supports that argument.

franga2000 3y ago

Every centralised resource requires a powerful entity to protect it. Something like a massive damn for hydro power is also a great target for a state's enemies and requires its protection. And if we consider not the inherent potential danger but also the danger of taking away a major power source, any centralised power generation - even massive wind and solar farms - needs such protection. And that isn't even looking at the political side of this - this asserts that a powerful state is necessarily authoritarian, which is complete nonsense. Some of the most powerful countries right now aren't authoritarian (not saying they're perfect democracies, but some are pretty ok compared to the worst we have) and the "most democratic" countries have right now are all powerful enough to keep their nuclear power safe (or could if they had it). It's also not a given that a powerful state is a bad thing. Weak democratic states make it possible for authoritarian regimes to take control. And even without that, weak states are usually ridden with crime and poverty, whereas strong states have the ability to level inequalities and prevent crime) - all without the need to be authoritarian. Oh, and let's not forget that the only reason we have cheap solar power in the first place is because they're produced by modern slaves in fully authoritarian countries with zero regard for human safety or the environment.