Random Thread

[bradrn]

We should only use nuclear power if there is literally no other way to eliminate coal and gas — and we should use it with great care and as little as possible.

...and until then, right? Because right now, with the possible exception of nations like Iceland, who have most of their cities sitting on or beside geothermal energy sources, most nations on Earth need to either buy their renewable energy-obtaining equipment from other countries, or make their own equipment - and both of the latter groups don't have enough such equipment to power all their homes and hospitals (to say nothing of military sites and other energy-using locales)

I really don’t see how renewables are any different to nuclear power in this regard. Indeed, I’d say that it’s easier and cheaper to buy renewable power sources than it is to make a nuclear power station.

[Raphael]

Perhaps this discussion could have its own thread now?

Except that your method of argument is giving the impression that not even mass murder is a problem, for the simple reason that, unlike nuclear incidents, it doesn't render the site of the mass shooting/etc uninhabitable for generations.

Well, I'm sorry if I did give that impression. My point is that, because of the much greater harm when things go wrong, nuclear power is much more of a problem than most of the other things you brought up, not that it is the only problem.

[Ryusenshi]

I think I have little to add to the conversation, but one of Raphael's questions hasn't been answered.

What else renders equally large swaths of land uninhabitable for a human lifetime or longer? Fugu accidents? Rampaging elephants? Sinkholes?

Of course fugu and elephants can't make a large swath of land uninhabitable... but several other things can and have.

• Coal mining: the Tagebau Hambach has transformed 44 km² of German countryside and forests into a desert, destroying several villages along the way. The Jharia coal field fire is spread over 450 km², and endangers the life of about 400 000 people.
• Hydroelectricity: the Three Gorges Dam transformed 1000 km² of land into a reservoir, displacing over a million people, and making several animal species extinct.
• Chemical industry: the Bhopal disaster.

[keenir]

Perhaps this discussion could have its own thread now?

I think we're pretty much done the discussion by now; yes?

Except that your method of argument is giving the impression that not even mass murder is a problem, for the simple reason that, unlike nuclear incidents, it doesn't render the site of the mass shooting/etc uninhabitable for generations.

Well, I'm sorry if I did give that impression.

thank you for clarifying.

My point is that, because of the much greater harm when things go wrong, nuclear power is much more of a problem than most of the other things you brought up, not that it is the only problem.

Except we haven't abandoned irrigation or agriculture, despite how both of those can and have had exactly the impact you warn everyone to steer clear of nuclear power for: and we've been accepting the former two's destructiveness for at least 10,000 years...whereas we've only had nuclear for at least/roughly 00,050 years.

[WeepingElf]

Those who think that nuclear power was the solution to the climate problem miss two things:

1. We'd need thousands of new nuclear power plants, many in places where no sane mind would want any, such as earthquake-prone regions, countries too corrupt to ensure safe operation, or countries whose leaders are desperate to obtain nuclear weapons.

2. Those thousands of nuclear power plants would use up the available uranium within a few decades.

The bottom line is: this is not an option. Renewable energies have neither of these problems, and are cheaper. There are nuclear bombs but no solar bombs.

[MacAnDàil]

In this discussion, the most important subject missing is the greenest form of energy: none at all. Sobriety is too often forgotten (but less so since the Putin invasion). It obviously is not possible in every circumstance, but in many circumstances we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it. Or realise that the task is superfluous and opt for a less energy-consuming task instead.

[WeepingElf]

In this discussion, the most important subject missing is the greenest form of energy: none at all. Sobriety is too often forgotten (but less so since the Putin invasion). It obviously is not possible in every circumstance, but in many circumstances we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it. Or realise that the task is superfluous and opt for a less energy-consuming task instead.

Right - energy saving is the cheapest and safest energy source of all!

[keenir]

Those who think that nuclear power was the solution to the climate problem miss two things:

1. We'd need thousands of new nuclear power plants, many in places where no sane mind would want any, such as earthquake-prone regions, countries too corrupt to ensure safe operation, or countries whose leaders are desperate to obtain nuclear weapons.

Those sound more like reasons to get rid of as much corruption as possible, improve energy grids so not everywhere needs to have a nuclear power plant.

Because if a country is too corrupt to ensure safe operation of a nuclear power plant, why presume that it would manage the safe operation of a geothermal or solar power plant? (ie, if somebody close to Dear Leader in North Korea said "lets have solar power alongside our nukes" and it got the approval...that doesn't equate to everyone in North Korea getting solar panels - just the upper echelons)

And if an earthquake is strong enough that it'd take out a nuclear power plant, I'd wager it would more than adequately wreck any more green power plant. (as would a river of lava flowing from a mountain whose volcano woke up)

If I remember correctly, from back when I did an investigation into what solar power cells and other equipment need, they require rare earth elements...and neither the USA nor either China is very good at extracting these from the ground without massive enviromental damage - nobody is building homes in the area those things are dug up, any time soon.

So no, no need to worry about nuclear meltdowns with solar power plants...just a need to worry about open pit mines and their ilk.

2. Those thousands of nuclear power plants would use up the available uranium within a few decades.

didn't we also think that we'd run out of uranium with the number of plants we had back in the '60s and '70s? (or that everyone would insta-die if the global population reached 7 billion?)

The bottom line is: this is not an option. Renewable energies have neither of these problems, and are cheaper. There are nuclear bombs but no solar bombs.

I imagine thats more from nobody wondering how to accomplish it, than from it not being possible. If a tree can be turned into a cannon, and a potato into a gun, I'd not be surprised that solar power can be weaponized.

[Moose-tache]

Those who think that nuclear power was the solution to the climate problem miss two things:

1. We'd need thousands of new nuclear power plants, many in places where no sane mind would want any, such as earthquake-prone regions, countries too corrupt to ensure safe operation, or countries whose leaders are desperate to obtain nuclear weapons.

2. Those thousands of nuclear power plants would use up the available uranium within a few decades.

The bottom line is: this is not an option. Renewable energies have neither of these problems, and are cheaper. There are nuclear bombs but no solar bombs.

Good thing all the necessary solar farms already exist and don’t need to be built, then. Try to be honest; admit that transitioning from fossil fuels requires building enormous amounts of new energy production capacity, no matter the type. The limiting factor here is construction cost. This dovetails nicely with the equally dishonest “solar is cheaper, actually” lie. When people say this, I always ask them to produce their data. Show me the construction costs of a) a 1gW solar farm plus batteries, and b) a 1gW nuclear power plant. To date, no anti-nuclear activist has ever shown the slightest awareness of what these two numbers might be, other than a) “I dunno, like five bucks maybe?” and b) “probably a trillion dollars I guess.” If they have any data awareness at all, they skirt the question by talking about operating costs. Solar farms are much cheaper to operate (especially if you cheat by not building batteries because you let the natural gas plant down the road handle night time demand), and any good accountant will tell you that anything that is cheaper to maintain is eventually cheaper overall. But that isn’t the question, is it? Climate change is not concerned with amortization. The construction costs are what determine the speed of transition from fossil fuels, and that is where a wide mix of energy strategies outpaces a narrow one.

The dishonesty continues with the business of uranium reserves. Breeder reactors enrich uranium through the movement of neutrons across atoms, producing two orders of magnitude more energy from fuel. The only reason they’re not used is because uranium mining is cheap (c.f. the above-mentioned Colonialism, which I guess the kids are now calling "Globalism" instead). And once again, all of this is irrelevant. Running out of uranium in five million years or five hundred (the former number is actually more realistic than the latter), the task is rapid energy transition. Once we stop killing our own children with climate change we have literally all the time in the world to chase whatever Utopian vision we please about the ideal energy mix. The issue is not whether nuclear energy is wonderful or terrible; you're free to shake your fist at it all you want, for whatever aesthetic reasons are at the heart of your distaste. The issue is whether or not it allows a faster transition, which it does. This is the only question regarding energy policy that is a matter of life and death for our civilization, and no one cares because they are too busy reciting koans about not hugging your children with nuclear arms.

It’s frustrating that I predicted every rebuttal, addressed and nullified it, and then scrolled down to see those rebuttals play out as if I hadn’t said a word. This is what I mean about anti-nuclear activism being a belief system. As Raphael pointed out, they’re not going to change their minds, because opposition to nuclear energy is not a scientific position. It is a religious identity.

[rotting bones]

xxx, WeepingElf, MacAnDail: This is discourse from an alternate reality. We're dying out here. You might not realize this because of the bubbles you're in, but to people working harder than anyone else while going hungry from poverty, you sound no different from: "If we all just lie down and stop eating, we'll never have to move again! Yay!" Most humans would happily wipe out all life on the planet before adopting this line.

21st century people have been too gaslit to realize this, but this is also a supremely reactionary, Malthusian line of argument. It's not leftist at all. Nowadays, all "serious" politics is a fight between a Mussolini "right" vs. a Malthusian "left", while a semi-Mussolini, semi-Malthusian "center" takes potshots at both sides. Since Mussolini was more progressive than Malthus, almost every country is moving to the "right".

Meanwhile if you have a rational conversation with most working people, their line is closer to Marx than anyone else. We might have to remove the "serious" people from power and start over with fools.

[keenir]

21st century people have been too gaslit to realize this, but this is also a supremely reactionary, Malthusian line of argument.

???
Can you please be more specific, as to what you mean by, when you say "this is"...because during the discussion and going back over it now, I can't see any Malthusian elements to any of it.

It's not leftist at all. Nowadays, all "serious" politics is a fight between a Mussolini "right" vs. a Malthusian "left",

um...where?

while a semi-Mussolini, semi-Malthusian "center" takes potshots at both sides. Since Mussolini was more progressive than Malthus, almost every country is moving to the "right".

[rotting bones]

21st century people have been too gaslit to realize this, but this is also a supremely reactionary, Malthusian line of argument.

???
Can you please be more specific, as to what you mean by, when you say "this is"...because during the discussion and going back over it now, I can't see any Malthusian elements to any of it.

It's not leftist at all. Nowadays, all "serious" politics is a fight between a Mussolini "right" vs. a Malthusian "left",

um...where?

while a semi-Mussolini, semi-Malthusian "center" takes potshots at both sides. Since Mussolini was more progressive than Malthus, almost every country is moving to the "right".

In this discussion, the most important subject missing is the greenest form of energy: none at all. Sobriety is too often forgotten (but less so since the Putin invasion). It obviously is not possible in every circumstance, but in many circumstances we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it. Or realise that the task is superfluous and opt for a less energy-consuming task instead.

Right - energy saving is the cheapest and safest energy source of all!

I'd argue that in an energy-starved world, this is effectively saying, "Let them eat cake!" Let me know if this is not obvious.

[rotting bones]

only if superconductivity-related energy is easy and cheap; til then (and maybe even then, if the power plants are expensive), can't tell them that any more than "the world" can do it now.

If fusion produces more power, then power will be cheaper. Superconductors also improve energy storage.

Perhaps a room-temperature superconductor would make it easier,

Ease is what economics is all about.

but that’s a relative term: plasma is a difficult substance to control, and in any case the energy density is abysmal.

Do you have a citation which says that magnetic confinement fusion (IIRC) is a bad power source?

It even works out without nuclear fission. People tend to vastly underestimate just how much power the Sun sends to us - for free.

I guess if you can build massive collector satellites and beam the energy down to earth like the Soviets planned. Personally, I don't think that would've worked.

OK, on my count, that's four people in this mini-debate so far raising a nuclear vs. coal binary. For someone from a part of the world where the pro-coal people are usually pro-nuclear, too, and the anti-nuclear people are usually anti-coal, too, that looks and sounds pretty surreal.

I'm told the Greens in Germany were forced to rely on coal once they had neither nuclear nor gas.

Those who think that nuclear power was the solution to the climate problem miss two things:

1. We'd need thousands of new nuclear power plants, many in places where no sane mind would want any, such as earthquake-prone regions, countries too corrupt to ensure safe operation, or countries whose leaders are desperate to obtain nuclear weapons.

Those sound more like reasons to get rid of as much corruption as possible, improve energy grids so not everywhere needs to have a nuclear power plant.

If representatives cannot be trusted with the power grid, I'd take that as an argument for direct democracy.

21st century people have been too gaslit to realize this, but this is also a supremely reactionary, Malthusian line of argument.

???
Can you please be more specific, as to what you mean by, when you say "this is"...because during the discussion and going back over it now, I can't see any Malthusian elements to any of it.

It's not leftist at all. Nowadays, all "serious" politics is a fight between a Mussolini "right" vs. a Malthusian "left",

um...where?

while a semi-Mussolini, semi-Malthusian "center" takes potshots at both sides. Since Mussolini was more progressive than Malthus, almost every country is moving to the "right".

In this discussion, the most important subject missing is the greenest form of energy: none at all. Sobriety is too often forgotten (but less so since the Putin invasion). It obviously is not possible in every circumstance, but in many circumstances we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it. Or realise that the task is superfluous and opt for a less energy-consuming task instead.

Right - energy saving is the cheapest and safest energy source of all!

I'd argue that in an energy-starved world, this is effectively saying, "Let them eat cake!" Let me know if this is not obvious.

Self-criticism: I could be mistaken if they're talking about increasing energy efficiency by, say, creating public transportation in America. My interpretation was was colored by the fact that I've heard MacAnDàil inveigh against technology and modernity generally. Hunting and gathering can no longer support the current human population.

[rotting bones]

Moose-tache: I more or less approve of your messages.

[keenir]

Right - energy saving is the cheapest and safest energy source of all!

I'd argue that in an energy-starved world, this is effectively saying, "Let them eat cake!" Let me know if this is not obvious.

I thought it was an observation on how, if you use energy-conserving measures, you save money...thats not "let them eat cake" - thats "ooh, i have a coupon for that"

but that’s a relative term: plasma is a difficult substance to control, and in any case the energy density is abysmal.

Do you have a citation which says that magnetic confinement fusion (IIRC) is a bad power source?

You mean beyond it being difficult to control & having abysmal density? Beyond that, how does it differ from other sorts of fusion power?

[keenir]

Those who think that nuclear power was the solution to the climate problem miss two things:
1. We'd need thousands of new nuclear power plants, many in places where no sane mind would want any, such as earthquake-prone regions, countries too corrupt to ensure safe operation, or countries whose leaders are desperate to obtain nuclear weapons.

Those sound more like reasons to get rid of as much corruption as possible, improve energy grids so not everywhere needs to have a nuclear power plant.

If representatives cannot be trusted with the power grid, I'd take that as an argument for direct democracy.

so..."we can't trust people to appoint representatives because everyone there is corrupt"...and the solution to that is to simply get rid of the representatives? who exactly is paying for whatever you need for direct democracy?

And wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the corruption, than to throw money at it and hope that everything somehow develops a thriving direct democracy that isn't still corrupt?

[rotting bones]

I thought it was an observation on how, if you use energy-conserving measures, you save money...thats not "let them eat cake" - thats "ooh, i have a coupon for that"

Is it? Poor people are dying from overwork. I don't think the amount of energy that could be saved if "we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it" is significant. However, considerable amounts of energy could be saved by designing more efficient technological systems.

You mean beyond it being difficult to control & having abysmal density? Beyond that, how does it differ from other sorts of fusion power?

Do you have a citation which says that magnetic confinement fusion is difficult to control and/or has abysmal density?

[rotting bones]

so..."we can't trust people to appoint representatives because everyone there is corrupt"...and the solution to that is to simply get rid of the representatives? who exactly is paying for whatever you need for direct democracy?

And wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the corruption, than to throw money at it and hope that everything somehow develops a thriving direct democracy that isn't still corrupt?

Let me ask you something: What causes corruption and how do you fix it? If corruption is an emergent phenomenon in social systems as described by Mesquita, then the way to fix corruption is to fix the point of failure: the representative. Consider:

1. Even relatively uncorrupt governments today are highly corrupt and drowning in indirect bribery.

2. Those governments are uncorrupt because people in those countries are rich, and therefore more difficult to bribe.

3. If the Third World were to become rich, then Third World peoples will demand more money in exchange for their goods. This will cause the cheap goods regimes prevailing in early 21st century First World countries to collapse.

[keenir]

so..."we can't trust people to appoint representatives because everyone there is corrupt"...and the solution to that is to simply get rid of the representatives? who exactly is paying for whatever you need for direct democracy?

And wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the corruption, than to throw money at it and hope that everything somehow develops a thriving direct democracy that isn't still corrupt?

Let me ask you something: What causes corruption and how do you fix it? If corruption is an emergent phenomenon in social systems as described by Mesquita, then the way to fix corruption is to fix the point of failure: the representative. Consider:

Considering that I have not heard of Mesquita, I will ask you if Mesquita's works count/consider that in this example, the corruption is widespread and not limited to the representatives, be those representatives elected or appointed?

1. Even relatively uncorrupt governments today are highly corrupt and drowning in indirect bribery.

So we're on the same page (sorry, bad wordplay), is "indirect bribery" a reference to "you get your dad to vote for my company, and I'll give your cousin (who works for my company) a promotion to Junior CEO and a huge raise that'd put twenty kids on a full ride scholarship", or is it something else?

2. Those governments are uncorrupt because people in those countries are rich, and therefore more difficult to bribe.

I suspect you may not be familiar with this thing we in the USA call "lobbys". Their entire job is to bribe elected representatives (and the non-elected who work with those people) to vote their way.

. If the Third World were to become rich, then Third World peoples will demand more money in exchange for their goods. This will cause the cheap goods regimes prevailing in early 21st century First World countries to collapse.

Not really - Hobby Lobby switched to buying from terrorists, while other businesses still buy from countries that I'd wager you'd call 3rd World...which still have sweatshops.

or is this one of those "the Third World is by definition not affluent" definitions, which neatly remains self-sustaining?

[keenir]

I thought it was an observation on how, if you use energy-conserving measures, you save money...thats not "let them eat cake" - thats "ooh, i have a coupon for that"

Is it? Poor people are dying from overwork.

Yes we are. and thats not going to suddenly stop if a regime like North Korea suddenly decides that the well-to-do should get solar panels. and yes, that is what the discussion was covering, amongst other things.

I don't think the amount of energy that could be saved if "we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it" is significant.

really? remember those "clap on! clap off!" commercials? how many calories does each person save by being able to turn lights and other devices on & off without leaving their seats and crossing a room? after all, you measure energy use in calories.

Now, multiply that by nations.

However, considerable amounts of energy could be saved by designing more efficient technological systems.

so in other words, you agree.

You mean beyond it being difficult to control & having abysmal density? Beyond that, how does it differ from other sorts of fusion power?

Do you have a citation which says that magnetic confinement fusion is difficult to control and/or has abysmal density?

Given that I don't know what sort of authorities you consider valid & which you don't think are worth they ink they'd be printed on, no i don't...but I wager you also have no citations which says that MCF is easy to control and has magnificent density.