You explained very thoroughly the same philosophical point that I passionately and firmly stand for.
This distinctive framing of "technology" vs "not" such, and more notably the also distinctive framing between "techno-enthusiasts" and the others - that place the first into a disappointing place of being viewed as little more than an isolated awkward with little touch with "ordinary people's/ordinary world experiences" I would say - that dominates our social discourses are witnesses of the one part that won the political and cultural war: the Luddites themselves, as well as the wide branch of Humanities that, as Charles P. Snow denounced in his remarkable and still highly relevant today 1950's "The Two Cultures", have remained orphans of the enormous boosts of science and technological breakthroughs and so remained keeping outside any grasping of them, be their tremendous benefits or their possible risks and eventual dangers in some cases, and judging them with fear, dismay, and often outright despise (instead of trying of acquainting with them in order to properly drive them for the sake of getting the best benefits for the most people possible and reduce the risks as much as possible), and that still keep its grip on public discourses in society by filling the void scientists had left for so much regarding relationship with the nonspecialized public due to its hegemony on ruling classes, politicians, public education systems as well as journalists and intellectuals.
Basically, the scientific breakthroughs has gone so far in so little time whilst dominant social culture has recoiled to backward mentality, and the grip it keeps is strangling and intoxicating our society, by fitting public discourses into these fallacious dichotomies that elsewhere would make little if not at all sense.
You are precious, Zion. How I wish that so much youths and activists would converge to the same points you are pointing out here, for in such dominant mindset what would make the difference is breaking this mold with this out of the box thinking, and push back the tendencies that had led to this into the last decades especially.
But there are sociopaths who are anti-breathing. They control many of the Earth's most powerful institutions, and they are always seeking even more control. Maybe we just say, "pro-life" and be done with it?
Well put. I will say that I'm "pro-nuclear" because in the current cultural context it does say something meaningful. If I have a chance, I will always follow up by explaining that I mean that nuclear is an abundant energy source that CAN be highly cost-competitive and safe. I do not favor using nuclear at any cost. (We must fix the enormous and irrational regulatory burden first before pushing a lot of nuclear.) So, while I agree with your overall point, in specific contexts being pro-nuclear is fairly clear and meaningful.
This seems to me difference from saying you are "pro-sun". Given our current context, that statement is meaningless and unhelpful. Does it mean you favor keeping the sun rather than trying to blow it up. That you think *any* exposure to the sun is good? Of course not. But saying that you are pro-nuclear conveys much more.
It is cost competitive and safe. Nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce electricity of any means yet devised. It is already cost competitive in a host of locations around the world. All costs for power are situational, and there are many in which nuclear power is essential on an economic basis.
It is difficult to compare costs accurately between sources when there are so many subsidies and regulations. When counting everything relevant -- including reliability and up-time -- it's probably true that current nuclear (especially older nuclear) is cost competitive with "renewables" but perhaps not with fossil fuels. But that's entirely due to vastly excessive regulation. Nuclear could be at least 75% cheaper than it is, and probably less than that. See excellent analyses on the Gordian Knot blog.
All nuclear particularly including new nuclear. Do you imagine that the UAE are idiots for building the four units at Barakkah? Saudi Arabia wants its first new nuclear plants. Egypt the same. Japan wants to restart many of its existing nuclear plants after the 2011 earthquake. France now wants to build new nuclear plants, given the unstable electrical supply situation n Germany and Spain.
All of these are for purely economic reasons. Your claim about older nuclear only is completely unfounded.
I was not saying that nuclear is not cost effective anywhere. It has become far more expensive than it was and than it needs to be in many countries, including the USA and most of Europe. South Korea used to build nuclear for a quarter the cost in the USA not long ago but have, like so many countries, succumbed to growing regulation and bureaucracy.
I have been a strong supporter of nuclear power for around 45 years. It does not help to ignore the way insane regulation (and environmental groups' lawsuits and other obstructive tactics) have driven up the cost. Fittingly, those same obstructive tactics are now being used against wind and solar projects. Old nuclear stations have already been built which means they don't need to raise huge amounts of money at current high interest rates. New nuclear designs may (I hope) be exempted in the USA from some of the regulations.
I had not heard that Japan wants to restart its reactors. Any pointers?
If my claims are completely unfounded in ANY country, why have so few nuclear plants been built in recent decades in so many countries, especially in the west?
"why have so few nuclear plants been built in recent decades in so many countries, especially in the west?"
Because new generating capacity of any kind is built where it is needed. Industrial load growth has been shrinking in all OECD nations for the past three decades largely as a result of WTO and the reloaction of industry to China, India and other parts of Asia, as well as Mexico. Load growth among OECD nations has been stagnant or declining for three decades. Hence no need for new plants when refurbishing existing plants is so effective.
"New nuclear designs may (I hope) be exempted in the USA from some of the regulations."
That won't happen. It was just a decade ago that the USA had appointed an antinuclear agitator as head of the NRC. His successor was equally destructive in her approach. In the US, nuclear regulation is a token of political competition between the two parties and has relatively little to do with what actually is needed or appropriate. Barrack Obama went out of his way to introduce regulations designed to cripple any new nuclear power development in the country. His actions alone increased substantially the cost of Vogtle 3 and 4 for political partisanship reasons.
The purpose of all energy sources is to provide power for human activity. As to the effect on climate by energy sources, China and India are entirely ignoring your views.
You explained very thoroughly the same philosophical point that I passionately and firmly stand for.
This distinctive framing of "technology" vs "not" such, and more notably the also distinctive framing between "techno-enthusiasts" and the others - that place the first into a disappointing place of being viewed as little more than an isolated awkward with little touch with "ordinary people's/ordinary world experiences" I would say - that dominates our social discourses are witnesses of the one part that won the political and cultural war: the Luddites themselves, as well as the wide branch of Humanities that, as Charles P. Snow denounced in his remarkable and still highly relevant today 1950's "The Two Cultures", have remained orphans of the enormous boosts of science and technological breakthroughs and so remained keeping outside any grasping of them, be their tremendous benefits or their possible risks and eventual dangers in some cases, and judging them with fear, dismay, and often outright despise (instead of trying of acquainting with them in order to properly drive them for the sake of getting the best benefits for the most people possible and reduce the risks as much as possible), and that still keep its grip on public discourses in society by filling the void scientists had left for so much regarding relationship with the nonspecialized public due to its hegemony on ruling classes, politicians, public education systems as well as journalists and intellectuals.
Basically, the scientific breakthroughs has gone so far in so little time whilst dominant social culture has recoiled to backward mentality, and the grip it keeps is strangling and intoxicating our society, by fitting public discourses into these fallacious dichotomies that elsewhere would make little if not at all sense.
You are precious, Zion. How I wish that so much youths and activists would converge to the same points you are pointing out here, for in such dominant mindset what would make the difference is breaking this mold with this out of the box thinking, and push back the tendencies that had led to this into the last decades especially.
Precious Zion, Was it not David MacKay who called himself "pro-arithmetic"?
But there are sociopaths who are anti-breathing. They control many of the Earth's most powerful institutions, and they are always seeking even more control. Maybe we just say, "pro-life" and be done with it?
Well put. I will say that I'm "pro-nuclear" because in the current cultural context it does say something meaningful. If I have a chance, I will always follow up by explaining that I mean that nuclear is an abundant energy source that CAN be highly cost-competitive and safe. I do not favor using nuclear at any cost. (We must fix the enormous and irrational regulatory burden first before pushing a lot of nuclear.) So, while I agree with your overall point, in specific contexts being pro-nuclear is fairly clear and meaningful.
This seems to me difference from saying you are "pro-sun". Given our current context, that statement is meaningless and unhelpful. Does it mean you favor keeping the sun rather than trying to blow it up. That you think *any* exposure to the sun is good? Of course not. But saying that you are pro-nuclear conveys much more.
It is cost competitive and safe. Nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce electricity of any means yet devised. It is already cost competitive in a host of locations around the world. All costs for power are situational, and there are many in which nuclear power is essential on an economic basis.
It is difficult to compare costs accurately between sources when there are so many subsidies and regulations. When counting everything relevant -- including reliability and up-time -- it's probably true that current nuclear (especially older nuclear) is cost competitive with "renewables" but perhaps not with fossil fuels. But that's entirely due to vastly excessive regulation. Nuclear could be at least 75% cheaper than it is, and probably less than that. See excellent analyses on the Gordian Knot blog.
All nuclear particularly including new nuclear. Do you imagine that the UAE are idiots for building the four units at Barakkah? Saudi Arabia wants its first new nuclear plants. Egypt the same. Japan wants to restart many of its existing nuclear plants after the 2011 earthquake. France now wants to build new nuclear plants, given the unstable electrical supply situation n Germany and Spain.
All of these are for purely economic reasons. Your claim about older nuclear only is completely unfounded.
I was not saying that nuclear is not cost effective anywhere. It has become far more expensive than it was and than it needs to be in many countries, including the USA and most of Europe. South Korea used to build nuclear for a quarter the cost in the USA not long ago but have, like so many countries, succumbed to growing regulation and bureaucracy.
I have been a strong supporter of nuclear power for around 45 years. It does not help to ignore the way insane regulation (and environmental groups' lawsuits and other obstructive tactics) have driven up the cost. Fittingly, those same obstructive tactics are now being used against wind and solar projects. Old nuclear stations have already been built which means they don't need to raise huge amounts of money at current high interest rates. New nuclear designs may (I hope) be exempted in the USA from some of the regulations.
I had not heard that Japan wants to restart its reactors. Any pointers?
If my claims are completely unfounded in ANY country, why have so few nuclear plants been built in recent decades in so many countries, especially in the west?
"why have so few nuclear plants been built in recent decades in so many countries, especially in the west?"
Because new generating capacity of any kind is built where it is needed. Industrial load growth has been shrinking in all OECD nations for the past three decades largely as a result of WTO and the reloaction of industry to China, India and other parts of Asia, as well as Mexico. Load growth among OECD nations has been stagnant or declining for three decades. Hence no need for new plants when refurbishing existing plants is so effective.
"New nuclear designs may (I hope) be exempted in the USA from some of the regulations."
That won't happen. It was just a decade ago that the USA had appointed an antinuclear agitator as head of the NRC. His successor was equally destructive in her approach. In the US, nuclear regulation is a token of political competition between the two parties and has relatively little to do with what actually is needed or appropriate. Barrack Obama went out of his way to introduce regulations designed to cripple any new nuclear power development in the country. His actions alone increased substantially the cost of Vogtle 3 and 4 for political partisanship reasons.
The purpose of all energy sources is to provide power for human activity. As to the effect on climate by energy sources, China and India are entirely ignoring your views.