I know he was born in India. His professional career is in British Columbia.
His "it takes too long!" argument is absolute nonsense. It hinges on the bulk of the "construction" time being government reluctance about nuclear power. So nuclear power takes too long to build because we take too long to build it? That argument doesn't pass muster.
I'm sorry. I think I've been overly hostile. We definitely can agree on the point that we need to walk and chew gum at the same time, so to speak.
We need to be busting out every tool at our disposal to slow down this global climate crisis. I'm just of the opinion that fear of nuclear power is vastly overblown, and this book is feeding into that fear. In a perfect world we'd be running entirely off true renewable energy. But we aren't. We live in Hell. We need to pull out all the stops so we don't make ourselves extinct.
Yeah, the (online) left is weirdly "fuck yeah science!" on nuclear and the counterpart is still riding on the legacy of the 1980s anti-nuclear movement, opposing it under any circumstances.
I'm personally of the opinion nuclear should be phased out eventually, but coal, oil, gas and other minor fossil fueled energy has a way higher priority to go first.
It also matters little, because energy under capitalism is dependent on the infighting between factions of capital. Like the much-mocked German shutdown of nuclear power. Half opportunism to prevent the electoral rise of the green party and half gift to the mining corporation RWE. Had it not happened, it would be the firms dealing with nuclear power supply, etc. to profit. Nothing gets done without the bourgeois benefitting.
It would seem the problem is capital, not what policy to follow.
It also matters little, because energy under capitalism is dependent on the infighting between factions of capital. Like the much-mocked German shutdown of nuclear power. Half opportunism to prevent the electoral rise of the green party and half gift to the mining corporation RWE. Had it not happened, it would be the firms dealing with nuclear power supply, etc. to profit. Nothing gets done without the bourgeois benefitting.
I've been in the nuclear trenches a few times (on the pro-nuclear side, though there are very obviously drawbacks and limitations and by no means do I advocate for paving the world with nuclear power plants or whatever the strawman is nowadays) and I've come to realize that anti-nuclear sentiments aren't fundamentally influenced by these well-thought-out arguments that anti-nuclear intellectuals and professionals have. It's much more to do with their profitability and rate of return and investment cost than like, scientific arguments about the amount of uranium/thorium reserves, or potential for disasters, and so on.
As in, the nuclear debate online isn't actually as relevant in the real world as it seems, and a lot of the displayed concern about Fukushima or Chernobyl happening again in government bodies isn't actually the thing that is motivating them, it's just good-old-fashioned capitalism and they're dressing it up. If we're talking environmental impacts, massive oil spills, while certainly widely known about and important points in the fossil fuel debate, haven't really done much to dent fossil fuel production quite like how nuclear disasters affected nuclear energy's reputation. And it takes a shitload of rare resources like cobalt and copper and lithium to create the renewables that would be required to get us to a fully renewable economy even if we assume energy consumption doesn't keep rising over time. The cumulative effect of hundreds and thousands of mines and quarries on the environment (let alone workers) is gigantic, but they're spread out enough (and often located in countries that the average person couldn't place on a map, let alone care deeply about) that they don't feature as heavily in the debate.
So basically I caution anybody who gets too lost in the sauce over the common issues that online debates are about because, while these things are extremely important, these aren't actually the big reasons why capitalists aren't investing heavily in them, so you're kinda wasting your time (even under the assumption that internet debates are somehow productive). Do you think a capitalist gives a shit whether their nuclear power plant has some leakage that raises cancer rates in the surrounding area, so long as it makes a profit? We have to distinguish the discussion over these things versus the material reality.
20 years doesn’t really seem that big of a deal compared to the consequences of climate chsnge. But in the US, it will actually take 60 years and then abandoned half way because 25 contractors were revealed to be fictitious companies and the 5 real ones demand a $150 billion screwdriver
I got an error there. They are built by water sources but 11 of 15 power rely on evaporative cooling via cooling towers.
There is the possibility of dry cooling, which doesn't use external water.
Geological stability is not relevant with on site storage in spent fuel pools or dry caskets.
If you keep risk assessment up to date that is not a problem (tsunami walls, emergency pumps/generators automatic shutdown, ...)
Security risks are of a concern not only for nuclear power plants. Think of pumped hydro. The Ukrainian reactors at Zaporizhzhia have very high standards of protection. Thick concrete walls, steel containment. It would be cheaper to start nuclear attacks, than to try to create a nuclear catastrophe by damaginh the reactors. But better save than sorry, hence the warnings by IAEO.
Ground stability is a factor in every building. Especially high ones with small ground area and strong forces acting on them... like wind turbines.
I know he was born in India. His professional career is in British Columbia.
His "it takes too long!" argument is absolute nonsense. It hinges on the bulk of the "construction" time being government reluctance about nuclear power. So nuclear power takes too long to build because we take too long to build it? That argument doesn't pass muster.
deleted by creator
Weird how China can do it in five years, then.
deleted by creator
I'm sorry. I think I've been overly hostile. We definitely can agree on the point that we need to walk and chew gum at the same time, so to speak.
We need to be busting out every tool at our disposal to slow down this global climate crisis. I'm just of the opinion that fear of nuclear power is vastly overblown, and this book is feeding into that fear. In a perfect world we'd be running entirely off true renewable energy. But we aren't. We live in Hell. We need to pull out all the stops so we don't make ourselves extinct.
deleted by creator
Yeah, the (online) left is weirdly "fuck yeah science!" on nuclear and the counterpart is still riding on the legacy of the 1980s anti-nuclear movement, opposing it under any circumstances.
I'm personally of the opinion nuclear should be phased out eventually, but coal, oil, gas and other minor fossil fueled energy has a way higher priority to go first.
It also matters little, because energy under capitalism is dependent on the infighting between factions of capital. Like the much-mocked German shutdown of nuclear power. Half opportunism to prevent the electoral rise of the green party and half gift to the mining corporation RWE. Had it not happened, it would be the firms dealing with nuclear power supply, etc. to profit. Nothing gets done without the bourgeois benefitting.
It would seem the problem is capital, not what policy to follow.
I've been in the nuclear trenches a few times (on the pro-nuclear side, though there are very obviously drawbacks and limitations and by no means do I advocate for paving the world with nuclear power plants or whatever the strawman is nowadays) and I've come to realize that anti-nuclear sentiments aren't fundamentally influenced by these well-thought-out arguments that anti-nuclear intellectuals and professionals have. It's much more to do with their profitability and rate of return and investment cost than like, scientific arguments about the amount of uranium/thorium reserves, or potential for disasters, and so on.
As in, the nuclear debate online isn't actually as relevant in the real world as it seems, and a lot of the displayed concern about Fukushima or Chernobyl happening again in government bodies isn't actually the thing that is motivating them, it's just good-old-fashioned capitalism and they're dressing it up. If we're talking environmental impacts, massive oil spills, while certainly widely known about and important points in the fossil fuel debate, haven't really done much to dent fossil fuel production quite like how nuclear disasters affected nuclear energy's reputation. And it takes a shitload of rare resources like cobalt and copper and lithium to create the renewables that would be required to get us to a fully renewable economy even if we assume energy consumption doesn't keep rising over time. The cumulative effect of hundreds and thousands of mines and quarries on the environment (let alone workers) is gigantic, but they're spread out enough (and often located in countries that the average person couldn't place on a map, let alone care deeply about) that they don't feature as heavily in the debate.
So basically I caution anybody who gets too lost in the sauce over the common issues that online debates are about because, while these things are extremely important, these aren't actually the big reasons why capitalists aren't investing heavily in them, so you're kinda wasting your time (even under the assumption that internet debates are somehow productive). Do you think a capitalist gives a shit whether their nuclear power plant has some leakage that raises cancer rates in the surrounding area, so long as it makes a profit? We have to distinguish the discussion over these things versus the material reality.
GOOD post
deleted by creator
20 years doesn’t really seem that big of a deal compared to the consequences of climate chsnge. But in the US, it will actually take 60 years and then abandoned half way because 25 contractors were revealed to be fictitious companies and the 5 real ones demand a $150 billion screwdriver
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What energy source ist fast enough to build? Wind? PV?
France constructed 56 reactors in 15 years (1974-1989) with about 60GW capacity.
Germanys nuclear program was faster in constructing capacity than any phase in the Energiewende.
deleted by creator
You do know that you can build nuclear power plants almost anywhere?
Four of the french ones are not at water sources. The biggest in the US is located in a desert. Katar has nuclear reactors.
Why would site selection be difficult?
deleted by creator
I got an error there. They are built by water sources but 11 of 15 power rely on evaporative cooling via cooling towers. There is the possibility of dry cooling, which doesn't use external water.