PowerSwitch

The Guardian - 15/03/11

The tendency in Britain to postpone politically painful choices about building new nuclear stations is dangerous.

Article continues ...

The Guardian - 15/03/11

Another rod to beat the nuclear industry.

Article continues ...

nexus wrote:Where, in all this debate about the terrible safety record of nuclear vs the terrible CO2 emissions of coal plants is any discussion of reducing our energy consumption?



It's as though the Western way of life is non negotiable and even if we have nuclear accidents and tip into runaway climate change it's all fine because up until the point that TSHTF we've been able to tumble dry our clothes, fly half way round the world for some sun, drive everywhere and watch our flat screen TVs.

Lets hope it's all worth it.

I really do despair.

Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its nuclear power plants while it reconsiders its nuclear strategy.

phobos wrote:

Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its nuclear power plants while it reconsiders its nuclear strategy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899

Im no fan of nuclear, but I dont see how we can generate enough power in the Uk without it :/

phobos wrote:

Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its nuclear power plants while it reconsiders its nuclear strategy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899

Im no fan of nuclear, but I dont see how we can generate enough power in the Uk without it :/

foodimista wrote:I can see NO REASON on any level why nuclear is a good idea.

foodimista wrote:I can see NO REASON on any level why nuclear is a good idea.

clv101 wrote: Why not? Don't overestimate nuclear's contribution. Nuclear's only expected to provide 10-15% over the coming decade or so. Cutting demand back by that much isn't a big deal at all?

emordnilap wrote:Enough power for what?

foodimista wrote:I can see NO REASON on any level why nuclear is a good idea.

nexus wrote:Where, in all this debate about the terrible safety record of nuclear vs the terrible CO2 emissions of coal plants is any discussion of reducing our energy consumption?



It's as though the Western way of life is non negotiable and even if we have nuclear accidents and tip into runaway climate change it's all fine because up until the point that TSHTF we've been able to tumble dry our clothes, fly half way round the world for some sun, drive everywhere and watch our flat screen TVs.

Lets hope it's all worth it.

I really do despair.

Why do geeks love nuclear power? More precisely, using Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, why do people with high logical-mathematical intelligence like nuclear power so much more than people with high intelligence in other areas? Framed this way, it's an easy question. In the world of logic and numbers and predictable machines, nuclear power is totally safe. Chernobyl doesn't count because, for political reasons, the plant was not designed, regulated, or run correctly. Fukushima doesn't count because, for political reasons, the plant was not built to withstand an 8.9 earthquake and tsunami. Nuclear power would be perfect if only you stinky primates would obey our beautiful science!

Of course, the anomalies that cause nuclear accidents are not the exception, but the rule. In this post, Stuart Staniford writes, "I have been deeply impressed at the ability of nuclear facilities to act as a multiplier of other kinds of disasters." And Sharon Astyk argues that we should design for failure:

...the costs of building levees to withstand category 5 hurricanes, and deepwater drilling platforms with automatic shutoffs, and nuclear plants in safe zones to withstand higher earthquakes are enormous -- at a time when the US alone has 3 trillion dollars worth of delayed infrastructure work... We seem to be reaching a point where Joseph Tainter's observations on the diminishing returns of complexity become strikingly obvious.

My own argument... is that we should turn it around and presume failure. That is, we should ask ourselves "what strategies are most effective and least risky in failure situations...given that systems failures happen all the time." In this model, distributed systems are less dangerous than centralized ones, and those that give partial return even if projects aren't completed or if models break down are more valuable than those that give more but only if we front-load a huge investment to them. It creates, in the end a different way of looking at our world...

To be fair, even with accidents, nuclear has killed far fewer people than coal. But even if it were physically harmless, it's still socially harmful (along with most other present sources) because it's centralized, and humans will inevitably turn centralized energy production into centralized political power. And even if they invent "Mr. Fusion" and we all have home energy plants, I still think it would be a disaster, because the more energy we have, the bigger mistakes we make using that energy, especially if the source allows us to become detached from other life. The ideal energy technology is home-scale, home-fixable, integrated with other life, and produces only enough for modest fun and comfort.