dave@yourcomputer #:cursor:
I can accept being wrong about many of my opinions, but the exception is nuclear power.
I firmly believe that we either grow up as a species and embrace it as a pathway to fusion, or we collapse into resource wars and cease to exist as a species.
Nothing matches it in energy density.
Rich Felker
@dave This is one you're wrong on. There is no way nuclear of any sort is ever practical in a world without centralized power backed by threat of violence. We can easily meet everybody's actual needs (not their technofuturist technofascist fantasies) with solar alone, even moreso solar and wind, and do this with local production where it's going to be used, no centralized targets that need to be protected.
Rich Felker
@dave Capitalism and fascism by nature expand to consume all resources to preserve scarcity. Vastly increasing the available supply of energy doesn't fix that. See: proof-of-work and now "AI". Wastes that were funded precisely to soak up the supply.
Rich Felker
@lispi314 @dave Anyone advocating for nuclear needs to explain how we're supposed to handle safety and waste, from both accidents and intentional acts to commit mass harm against populations, without the force of state violence. Otherwise it is a "solution" compatible only with fascist futures not with a future we should want (and want our descendants) to live in.
LisPi
@dave @dalias I see. Fair enough.
I don't think large-scale generators can be put everywhere and I'd be wary of trusting the competence (or diligence) of thousands or millions of operators not to screw up horribly on a semi-frequent basis.
The smallest-scale ones in submarines have already led to numerous passive accidents and containment losses without active sabotage or incompetence (rather the skill barrier for nuclear submarine crew is pretty high).
I'd sooner recommend "not being hated by everyone such that interconnection isn't an option" as an energy strategy, if somehow one has no renewables options.
dave@yourcomputer #:cursor:
LisPi
dave@yourcomputer #:cursor:
@lispi314 @dalias I don't disagree with that. If solar, wind, geo, works for you where you are, rock on my friend.
But they don't work everywhere. Nuclear does. And it can even be run at a small scale.
LisPi
@dave Consider: Literally just the actively misused and wasted space is enough to cover for the USA's needs in solar.
That's the scale of things.
Sure nuclear has its uses but in a lot of ways it's just not even needed?
Rich Felker
@lispi314 @dave I'm willing to listen if anyone has real ideas to solve these fundamental issues and is committed to a future not dependent on immensely powerful states wielding the threat of violence.
But it seems like a huge waste of efford and excess complexity. We know how to solve all of our energy needs with solar and wind. Everywhere, possibly with trade & transmission lines where more-than-baseline levels are wanted in polar-adjacent locations, but yes everywhere.
LisPi
@dalias @dave The disposal part can be relatively-simply addressed on massive sites with on-site deep geological disposal.
That's not an option at small random sites. So already this becomes a large coordinated effort (nevertheless possible without states, yes).
That also precludes the reuse of the "waste" in slightly different reactors, because that waste is most likely not truly waste but simply unfit for that particular reactor design.
(This is where the temporary-long-term storage & its safety becomes a problem.)
It also doesn't solve the incoming transport of mass reusable for harmful purpose & its security, though.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.