Cy Winther-Tamaki
@tamaki
I was having a conversation about nuclear energy recently, and I know it’s popular across the political spectrum these days so I thought I’d publicly share why I’m against it. Nuclear still depends on a finite resource compared to something like sunlight which never can be diminished with use. So what, we stop using one finite resource (fossil fuels) just so we can start fighting over who controls access over another? I know it’s more abundant and so efficient yada yada but… induced demand, you know what I’m saying? And don’t get me started on nuclear waste. If you look at the world today, governments can’t keep commitments for a decade ahead and you’re telling me we can keep the waste secure for centuries or millennia? Give me a break. It’s the height of irresponsibility to future generations. See, the thing is, if you want a “solar punk” utopia, the energy systems must be circular, self contained. And nuclear definitely is not.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
Induced demand isn't a good argument to not build things. More energy use is a good thing even if it doesn't lower the price of electricity for the same reason why building more apartments in cities is a good thing even if it doesn't lower the cost of housing. More quantity even at the same price is good. Re: can we keep nuclear waste secure for centuries or millennia?: This is a nirvana fallacy. Nuclear doesn't need to be better than utopia, it needs to be better than natural gas.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
I'll steelman the anti-nuclear case: if someone can solve gridscale & microgrid batteries at the right mix of raw material costs, installation costs, and performance (both capacity and long-term maintenance), then you'd have a more decentralized & resilient grid than even SMR nuclear could provide. But the opposition to nuclear has been a mostly a morass of regulatory hurdles leading to cost inflation and then this being used as Kafkaesque "why are you hitting yourself?" evidence of why nuclear is not viable.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction