3 ms·

Comfort tale or not, my country banned it completely 40 years ago by popular referendum. I don't think the economics were what people had in mind one year after

Comfort tale or not, my country banned it completely 40 years ago by popular referendum. I don't think the economics were what people had in mind one year after the Chernobyl disaster.

pfdietz 2y ago
Correlation is not causation. You would need to show that in the absence of that ban, nuclear would have been successful. The "nuclear would have worked except for the meddling kids" theory needs to explain why all sorts of other destructive technologies plow right along, even in the face of massive campaigns against them. The distinguishing feature is those technologies are economic winners. Large profit flows trump activism. Unprofitable technologies don't have the stakeholders who would defend them.
- rnhmjoj 2y ago
  It's pointless arguing whether it could have been economically successful, we'll largely never know because people got scared.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing.
  - rnhmjoj 2y ago
    > pfdietz: It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing. I said my country effectively banned nuclear power with a popular referendum that was completely biased by the aftermath of Chernobyl [1], economics hardly played any role in it. This is a fact. Similar referenda were also held (or tried to be held) in other countries like Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia, and if you look you'll find the concerns were not economical, but about the safety and waste management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      The unjustifiable part is the connection of this ban to any consequence. The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed. But then you admitted this conclusion cannot be justified. So, your pointing to the ban is just dishonestly trying to connect the dots without actually connecting any dots. Me, I think the raw cost figures speak for themselves. Even if nuclear had not been banned, it would have failed, although perhaps lots of money would have been wasted trying to maintain the pretense it wasn't a failure.
      - rnhmjoj 2y ago
        > The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed I never said that, I said I think economics have little to do with the downfall of nuclear power. At least in most european countries, nuclear was banned or phased out for other reasons.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        You said: > I don't think fission is loosing because it's too expensive: it has acquired a reputation of being dangerous and it's probably too late to convience people otherwise, maybe younger generations. That is, you are claiming that the CAUSE of nuclear's state is the public reaction, not economics. If nuclear would have failed anyway, how can that "because" be valid?
      - dialup_sounds 2y ago
        Nuclear seems to have worked out well for France over the last 50 years.
        mmooss 2y ago
        But not cost-effectively, afaik ?
        2y ago
- dTal 2y ago
  >Unprofitable technologies don't have the stakeholders who would defend them. I think this is the key observation. I have no doubt that the referendum mentioned in this thread was unfairly biased by Chernobyl. But if nuclear were a trillion dollar industry, such a referendum would never have been allowed to take place. Nobody was holding referendums to ban oil after Exxon Valdez. But I think it's also worth mentioning that a big part of the reason that nuclear is difficult to turn a profit with is regulation (and public opinion) that unfairly holds nuclear to a much higher standard than fossil fuels. In a "nuclear context", any radiation is seen as an environmental catastrophe. Meanwhile coal plants belch radioactive waste out of their smokestacks and nobody bats an eye. Why, just a few days ago an article hit the front page about the US Army burying store bought tape dispensers in 55 gallon drums as hazardous waste, because they contained a small amount of a certain type of beach sand with radiation oh-so-slightly above background. All that pointless burying of harmless crap has got to cost!

Comfort tale or not, my country banned it completely 40 years ago by popular referendum. I don't think the economics were what people had in mind one year after the Chernobyl disaster.

pfdietz 2y ago

Correlation is not causation. You would need to show that in the absence of that ban, nuclear would have been successful. The "nuclear would have worked except for the meddling kids" theory needs to explain why all sorts of other destructive technologies plow right along, even in the face of massive campaigns against them. The distinguishing feature is those technologies are economic winners. Large profit flows trump activism. Unprofitable technologies don't have the stakeholders who would defend them.

rnhmjoj 2y ago
It's pointless arguing whether it could have been economically successful, we'll largely never know because people got scared.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing.
- rnhmjoj 2y ago
  > pfdietz: It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing. I said my country effectively banned nuclear power with a popular referendum that was completely biased by the aftermath of Chernobyl [1], economics hardly played any role in it. This is a fact. Similar referenda were also held (or tried to be held) in other countries like Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia, and if you look you'll find the concerns were not economical, but about the safety and waste management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The unjustifiable part is the connection of this ban to any consequence. The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed. But then you admitted this conclusion cannot be justified. So, your pointing to the ban is just dishonestly trying to connect the dots without actually connecting any dots. Me, I think the raw cost figures speak for themselves. Even if nuclear had not been banned, it would have failed, although perhaps lots of money would have been wasted trying to maintain the pretense it wasn't a failure.
    - rnhmjoj 2y ago
      > The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed I never said that, I said I think economics have little to do with the downfall of nuclear power. At least in most european countries, nuclear was banned or phased out for other reasons.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        You said: > I don't think fission is loosing because it's too expensive: it has acquired a reputation of being dangerous and it's probably too late to convience people otherwise, maybe younger generations. That is, you are claiming that the CAUSE of nuclear's state is the public reaction, not economics. If nuclear would have failed anyway, how can that "because" be valid?
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      Nuclear seems to have worked out well for France over the last 50 years.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        But not cost-effectively, afaik ?
        2y ago
dTal 2y ago
>Unprofitable technologies don't have the stakeholders who would defend them. I think this is the key observation. I have no doubt that the referendum mentioned in this thread was unfairly biased by Chernobyl. But if nuclear were a trillion dollar industry, such a referendum would never have been allowed to take place. Nobody was holding referendums to ban oil after Exxon Valdez. But I think it's also worth mentioning that a big part of the reason that nuclear is difficult to turn a profit with is regulation (and public opinion) that unfairly holds nuclear to a much higher standard than fossil fuels. In a "nuclear context", any radiation is seen as an environmental catastrophe. Meanwhile coal plants belch radioactive waste out of their smokestacks and nobody bats an eye. Why, just a few days ago an article hit the front page about the US Army burying store bought tape dispensers in 55 gallon drums as hazardous waste, because they contained a small amount of a certain type of beach sand with radiation oh-so-slightly above background. All that pointless burying of harmless crap has got to cost!