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.

writing stuff about tech + decentralization

Most modern nuclear power designs have graceful/safe degrading even when cooling is interrupted via passive systems.

I don't buy that "warfare will bomb nuclear power plants causing catastrophe" is any more proportional of a threat model than "someone will drop a nuke during warfare causing catastrophe."

We may as well benefit if we're going to endure the same or worse risks anyway.

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

The risk profile of nuclear weapons and civilian reactors are totally different things. Passive safety of new reactors are a huge improvement from older models, but many reactors don’t use them and even those that do, if attacked, can release widespread regional contamination.

Yes, Russia targeted nuclear facilities, but yet there have been zero catastrophic fallout right?

Russia also has nukes, if they wanted nuclear fallout then they have a multitude of ways to achieve that.

The main reason to target concentrated power stations in battle is to disrupt power, not to ~permanently pollute the entire region. Whether that's hydro power, nuclear power, coal power, whatever it's the same calculus in that respect.

I think those are fair points but they don’t negate what I’m saying. Russia has specifically targeted nuclear facilities in Ukraine and it is a tactic that could be used elsewhere.

I do agree with your broader point however. Nuclear energy exists and there are benefits. 

As I said, I see value in it as part of an overall strategy of decarbonizing. Renewables are better on basically every metric though, so I prefer investment and mindshare to focus there, personally.