Science We need a new nuclear age

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Because if the problem is handled, you cannot make money off being an activist for it, or teaching people to be an activist for it, or make money off short-term non-solutions that sound good to greenies.
I remember hearing a story told by the guy who invented those cyclone vacuum cleaners; apparently, he tried to shop his invention around to several established companies until he finally gave up and decided to start making them himself. Years later, executives at those companies expressed regret that they didn't take him up on his offer to buy his invention, and sat on it; because they would have preferred to maintain the status quo of the vacuum cleaner industry indefinitely.

The moral of the story? Businessmen are sedentary creatures who abhor innovation; they want to sell you the same product over and over again, without ever having to worry about anything new springing up that might prove to be effective competition.
 

Brutus

Well-known member
Hetman
The best thing to do is to get the good information about nuclear power out there and share it. Nullifying the scare campaign of the greens. Eventually things will reach Critical Mass and Split, ensuring that you will have two camps of thought. One saying nuclear power good with the other saying nukes are bad.

Start a petition saying with the issue with renewables freezing in bad weather the state should invest in nuclear power plants.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
The best thing to do is to get the good information about nuclear power out there and share it. Nullifying the scare campaign of the greens. Eventually things will reach Critical Mass and Split, ensuring that you will have two camps of thought. One saying nuclear power good with the other saying nukes are bad.

Start a petition saying with the issue with renewables freezing in bad weather the state should invest in nuclear power plants.
I'm pro-nuclear, but the shit in Texas...the had a nuke plant shut down because a few sensors froze, and they've also had intake pipes at conventional plants freeze up.

For pro-nuke stuff, I would point you to NuScale Power's SMRs and their potential for cheaper nuclear power using smaller, transportable (built at the plant, moved to the reactor location by flatbed truck) reactors.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
...Fucking why?

Okay, I get that several industries would be destroyed, and that'd affect a fraction of the population's jobs and income, but are those the only real reasons?

Because the green political movement is heavily neo-Luddite, and they see minimizing and downscaling human technology as a moral imperative. The idea that we can actually solve ecological impact through *more and better technology* is anathema to them.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Because the green political movement is heavily neo-Luddite, and they see minimizing and downscaling human technology as a moral imperative. The idea that we can actually solve ecological impact through *more and better technology* is anathema to them.

Actually, I'm not sure they're ideologically neo-luddite so much as "want modern conveniences to be luxuries reserved for themselves" ...
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Actually, I'm not sure they're ideologically neo-luddite so much as "want modern conveniences to be luxuries reserved for themselves" ...
No, no, some are genuine neo-luddites who want to move humanity back towards "subsistence living for everyone!" because they hate how human society has affected certain natural systems or environments.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
No, no, some are genuine neo-luddites who want to move humanity back towards "subsistence living for everyone!" because they hate how human society has affected certain natural systems or environments.
We call those people "nutcases". or Greenpeace. :p
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
The thing about nuclear waste is that most of it is actually reactor fuel, it's just coated with a neutron absorbing coating. All you have to do is remove this coating and separate the various medical and non-medical isotopes and you're good to go.

Problem is, that has been made illegal thanks to the various lobbies to 'limit nuclear weapons proliferation'...
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
The recent power blackouts in Texas are being heavily blamed on "green power", but ERCOT's figures show that out of 45,000 megawatts of power that went offline causing the blackouts, two-thirds of the lost power was from natural gas plants and only one-third from wind turbines. Coal plants also went offline, and even some (but not all) nuclear.

All of this was preventable; the problem is ERCOT and other Texas energy providers refused to winterize their power plants of all types, saying it was an unnecessary expense because super cold weather is so rare in Texas. At the same time, they were unable to bring in power from elsewhere in the country, because Texas has its own independent power grid which is intentionally disconnected from the nationwide grid so that it falls solely under state authority. It's the most heavily privatized and least regulated power grid in the nation, both for good and for bad.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
The recent power blackouts in Texas are being heavily blamed on "green power", but ERCOT's figures show that out of 45,000 megawatts of power that went offline causing the blackouts, two-thirds of the lost power was from natural gas plants and only one-third from wind turbines. Coal plants also went offline, and even some (but not all) nuclear.

All of this was preventable; the problem is ERCOT and other Texas energy providers refused to winterize their power plants of all types, saying it was an unnecessary expense because super cold weather is so rare in Texas. At the same time, they were unable to bring in power from elsewhere in the country, because Texas has its own independent power grid which is intentionally disconnected from the nationwide grid so that it falls solely under state authority. It's the most heavily privatized and least regulated power grid in the nation, both for good and for bad.
The thing is, we've seen that privatization for things like this only end badly for those involved. When things involve the Bottom Line (aka profits), then the usual things to get on the chopping block is whatever expenses they can cut be maintenance or things like this.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
The thing is, we've seen that privatization for things like this only end badly for those involved. When things involve the Bottom Line (aka profits), then the usual things to get on the chopping block is whatever expenses they can cut be maintenance or things like this.

Texas chose to embrace maximum free market, and they are now living with it.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
The thing is, we've seen that privatization for things like this only end badly for those involved. When things involve the Bottom Line (aka profits), then the usual things to get on the chopping block is whatever expenses they can cut be maintenance or things like this.
Texas chose to embrace maximum free market, and they are now living with it.
Private companies are hardly the only ones to do cost-benefit analysis for what expenses need to be made based on historical weather patterns. Governments do it all the time too. Roads in Texas are equally bad and chaotic due to the weather, as they lack the number of plows and chemicals to treat the roads, all due to similar calculations done by their Department of Transportation, a government body.

This is the case across the entire country, more southern states never spend as much money on winterizing roads and having plows as more northerly states, since for 95% of their winters they never need them and the costs of maintaining those things outweigh the benefits of having them in the rare time they are needed. This means that they shut down for snowstorms that more northerly states think would be ridiculous to shut down for, and when they get hit by a major winter storm, it typically has more impact than a similar storm in the north.

Frankly, this could have as easily happened if the power grid was completely publicly owned rather than privatized for the exact same reason of saving money and expense over time.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Private companies are hardly the only ones to do cost-benefit analysis for what expenses need to be made based on historical weather patterns.

Cost-benefit analysis is not exclusive to private companies, but private companies in Texas' isolated market uniquely have a motive to *intentionally* skew their cost-benefit analysis short because they can not only reduce their ongoing maintenance costs, but actually *profit more* from inducing power shortages because it allows them to spike the costs.

In fact, thus far the only move by Texas regulators was to authorize Texas utilities to now *retroactively* raise their rates even higher than they already did, claiming that the price gouging cap that was previously one of the few regulations imposed by the state, was clearly unfair to the companies because power *should be* gouged during times of scarcity.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
People will release when the US tries to go Green, same with France, and see just how not so good it is, and that Nuclear is the best way.

Nuclear power *is* green. That's the thing that pisses me off the most -- nuclear power is the safest, the most reliable, the most scalable, *and* the most eco-friendly source of power there is, it literally has *no* downsides other than up-front cost, and most of that cost downside is *artificial*.

I'm massively pro-nuclear *because* I'm an avid environmentalist. I'm just not *politically* "green".
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Actually, I'm not sure they're ideologically neo-luddite so much as "want modern conveniences to be luxuries reserved for themselves" ...

Those people are still ideologically neo-luddite; they just think that *they* deserve to be the exceptions because they're rich and important and "deserve it". They still fundamentally think that humanity needs to economize, they're just selfish hypocrites who think that means *everyone else* should be made to economize.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
I remember hearing a story told by the guy who invented those cyclone vacuum cleaners; apparently, he tried to shop his invention around to several established companies until he finally gave up and decided to start making them himself. Years later, executives at those companies expressed regret that they didn't take him up on his offer to buy his invention, and sat on it; because they would have preferred to maintain the status quo of the vacuum cleaner industry indefinitely.

That's kinda his own marketing spin, though. Dyson didn't even actually invent the cyclone vacuum cleaner, which dates back to 1913; he was simply the first to *effectively market* a compact consumer-grade vacuum cleaner which combined cyclone operation and a bagless design.

(Also, Dyson in the United States tends to be thought of as a 2000s thing, but in reality, that's only when the company got big enough to go international. Their early models were on the market in Japan by the late 1980s, and they made it big in the UK by the mid-1990s.)
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Nuclear power *is* green. That's the thing that pisses me off the most -- nuclear power is the safest, the most reliable, the most scalable, *and* the most eco-friendly source of power there is, it literally has *no* downsides other than up-front cost, and most of that cost downside is *artificial*.

I'm massively pro-nuclear *because* I'm an avid environmentalist. I'm just not *politically* "green".
I ment politically green green. Not best green, as in using nuclear to power ot
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top