Looking at the last several thousand years of history, where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology? Looking at the past several hundred years, and not ignoring the environmental catstrophe which is now our home planet, within what perspective of current society would managing such dangerous technology make any kind of universal sense.
When these questions can be answered satisfactorily without resorting to a completely controlled top-down society, only then can we begin to discuss the pluses and minus on the technology side.
From another angle, what's the point. I for one have already decided, based upon the best evidence at hand, the only future which makes sense to me includes visions of happy children playing in a society powered by the source of life itself, the sun. Measured against that vision, anything else smacks of the same blindness which has brought us to our current situation.
We are simply not evolved enough to manage anything other than the gentle power of the sun as it reaches us, for example, causing the temperature differences which bring us the wind. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
[...]where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology?
France?
I for one have already decided, based upon the best evidence at hand, the only future which makes sense to me includes visions of happy children playing in a society powered by the source of life itself, the sun.
I swear I saw lillies flourishing when I read that ;) Now seriously, that sounds pretty good, the problem is how we get there. Vencit omnia veritas.
I also don't see Nuclear as being the spine of a long lasting steady state society. As renewable energies progress, with time they will all surpass Nuclear, if not on other grounds first, ultimately on economic terms, because the decommissioning is incredibly cheaper and safety concerns are very small (if existent).
But we can't just dream with perfect societies, we have to build them. And for now (and coming back to my initial question to melo) how can we possibly do it without Nuclear?
P.S.: That is evil of you, to destroy beautiful flours to adorn your hair. Vencit omnia veritas.
Renewable technologies have already progressed where some are more cost competitive, especially when all hard and external costs are factored in, and windpower has already shown what will happen with the other technologies. Thus there is no social need for any nuclear energy, as the renewables can already do the job. It will entail, of course, the kind of investment necessary to scale up nuclear as well, but it has more social benefit.
Just for the record, Luis, you are talking to a dreamer who happened to be one of the first builders of windpower in the world, so please no lectures on building. I built the first commercial turbine in the US, asked a developer friend to bring in the first Danish machines to the US, and developed the first utility scale windpark in the world. I do put my dreams into action.
Renewable energies can deliver all the energy our civilization needs, when combined with demand management and conservation (negawatts.) In the time frame necessary. Including all the necessary supply and delivery infrastructure. Globally. With much social benefit and virtually no downside.
This view is the result of thousands of studies over four decades, four decades of technology development, and three decades of commercial development. It is no longer a dream.
Attention: No flowers were killed in the making of this comment thread, they were all metaphorical, as in i came from San Francisco. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Looking at the last several thousand years of history, where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology?
Neat trick. How does that work, exactly?
