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
Cy Winther-Tamaki
@tamaki
Sorry for the late reply. Regarding induced demand, of course expanding energy supply is broadly beneficial and low carbon emissions is a fantastic benefit. My point is that seemingly cheap nuclear energy is not so cheap when you consider massive externalities. Long lived waste, accident risk, etc. As for whether nuclear is ‘better’ than natural gas. Sure carbon emissions are negligible, but the tail risks are unprecedented in scale. They may be rare, but they can render an area uninhabitable for centuries. How do you even put a price on that kind of possibility. I want to emphasize that every step of the nuclear lifecycle, from thorium and uranium mining to fuel refinement and disposal, has the potential for contamination or accident. Nuclear energy isn’t just a technical challenge; it also poses a socio-political puzzle of providing stable governance for millennia, in a world which looks radically different from the world of today.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Cy Winther-Tamaki
@tamaki
The current regulations over nuclear exist precisely because there have been so many accidents and near-misses to prompt those safe-guards. Are much of them regulatory bloat? Yeah. But if history is any guide, it seems unlikely that slashing regulation isn’t going to reintroduce unacceptable risks. 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)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
Surely if we make enough progress in drones, we will also make progress in democratizing uranium mining and enrichment? I expect many other countries to grow their nuclear energy sector. Over the course of millennia, I would hope we are a multiplanetary species. My point is that we should expect the future solutions to be so vast and unpredictable, it would be irresponsible not to pull the future forward through increasing energy use (via nuclear), in other words the Proactionary principle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_principle
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction