cryptoleft

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.

Curious what cryptoleft folks thoughts on nuclear energy are

Urbanist thinking about open places, open access, and open web
/urbanism + https://zora.co/@miawintam

I generally agree with tamaki’s statement. We have an incredible nuclear reactor that can power everything for all of human existence: it’s called the sun.

Another issue people don’t talk about enough is how nuclear plants are easy targets during warfare. Once struck they are not only disabled from producing power but produce hazardous waste and radiation. 

That said, I’m not outright anti-nuclear. It could be one strategy among many, that helps us diversify our energy inputs to move away from fossil fuels quickly. 

With all of the above said, long term we should be want to move away from nuclear for the same reasons we should be want to move away from fossil fuels: because extraction is at the heart of much of global conflict and inequality.

it's awesome (for space stations and deep space exploration)

Do all the things that bring us closer to where we need to go. Purity of approach is a luxury for the privileged.

Also there's no future where we simply don't need any nuclear-derived technology. This needs to be a thriving field of research for the foreseeable future, even to the point where we can produce our own artificial suns.

Wanted to add to the discussion the point of vulnerability of nuclear as targets in warfare and terrorism. 

Modern nuclear reactor designs are indeed safer and do reduce meltdown risks, but consider that the modern threat profile has also evolved (autonomous drones and cyberattacks). Even a well designed reactor is a high-value target to terrorism or in war precisely because of the energy density of nuclear. A successful attack may not cause full meltdown, but still disrupt critical systems enough to create local or regional disasters. (Also consider that the costs to launch drone and cyber attacks is already relatively low and trending ever lower)

solarpunk is about more than just solar energy lol 

in short, I'm all for nuclear energy solutions or most solutions that gets us off oil and gas

I'm for it till the inevitable outcome of how much nuclear waste do we dump in this playground discussion cause we don't want to pay to invest in inventing ways to dispose of waste more effectively and safely

We can't get to net zero (useless term, I know. But it seems to be the only goal we're working towards) without nuclear imo. but would we really wean off a tech that will take a lot of investment to fill in our current gaps? Doubt it