with all the externalities factored in, nuke power is way more expensive than it's sold as being
once you start thinking about the social costs, it goes clear off the map, unless the idea of further orwellian dystopias is your cuppa lipton's.
how is it pro-nuke to debate how much the bloody things cost? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Give us a figure.
And it is not anti-nuke because the anti-nuke position disputes the validity of cost-benefit analysis. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
btw, thanks for that archive link, migeru, clicking on it revealed a bunch of brilliant multilogue i had missed, due to the inconvenient truth that there are only 24 hours in a day/night cycle.
i'd very much like to see a collection of deananders' replies bound into a handbook of rational, enlightened rebuttal to the nukedealers' propositioning.
the replies could be prefaced by interview-style one or two-line questions.
i'd love to see her on 'hardtalk' with stephen sackur too.
lotta meta in this discussion, i guess a reaction to not feeling some feelings...
special props to starvid for consistency and restraint, and not resorting to vitriol.
de's compendia iterate perfectly my gut feelings, and enrich my judgement with wisdom, surgical deconstructions and always fearlessly looking at the big picture.
blogging at its finest ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Well, yes, that's my conclusion as you will have read in this thread and the one you refer to. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
how is it pro-nuke to debate how much the bloody things cost?
It boils down to this: some of us are technocrats. some more eager and some more reluctant. But from a technocratic point of view, the heated debate makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe De and DoDo are recovering technocrats (like DoDo calls himself a recovering interventionist). Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
I'm not sure I am not a technocrat -- not with rail; and I think even building & maintaining a decentralised energy production structure would need elements that can be called technocratic -- say grid planning, balancing (energy storage) network, boosting production and technology export. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Most of the most vociferous opposition to nuclear isn't. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
the simple issue being how to provide as much power as cleanly as possible to as many people, cleaning up our ancestors mistakes, and busting people who pretend to be logical and dispassionate, but are really indulging in intransigence, for the ego-thrilling sake of it.
it's interesting how the tone (polemic, superior) reveals almost always more than the melody ( the wake of the mind's tacks), except in certain poignant occasions, to wrap it in a musical metaphor.
i think of a gorgeous strain, hissing and crackling through a rusty, semi-shorted reciever, and still breaking your heart.
some melodies can do that, beat even shitty tone....exception that proves the rule!
when it comes down to trusting my eyes or my ears, i always trust the latter, it connects more deeply.
can you 'hear' tone in the posts here at ET?
i sure can...life's too short to waste reacting to bristly pedants. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Now, all this anti-military claptrap is rather irritating. Every state has a military, its own or somebody elses, no matter if it has nuclear power or not. Saying that it promotes surveillance and fascism and everything is just silly. The military is what has stood between us and Soviet occupation for the last half century. And that would have meant surveillance and fascism.
And seriously, don't tell me you think France, the UK, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, Germany etc have turned into fascist autocracies since we deployed nuclear reactors, especially when compared to non-nuclear nations like Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Austria, Italy etc? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
European Commission: External Costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport (2003) [PDF] Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Also, the "External cost figures for electricity production in the EU for existing technologies" table has a footnote: "sub-total of quantifiable externalities (such as global warming, public health, occupational health, material damage)"
So, on the face of it, the specific risks of nuclear power are not addressed. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
