Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy | 51 comments (51 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
Before attempting to answer this question, we need to change the frame of the debate.

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

by Crazy Horse on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 07:44:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 1)

[...]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.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 08:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
France's 50 year management of its nuclear plants does not even begin to address the questions i raised, about very long term stable societies, where the track record to date is a destroyed planet.  And you did see lillies, probably in my hair.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
I only count one question, on who is able to manage the technology.

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.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 4)
The second question was within what social perspective would such management make universal sense, which you haven't answered.

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

by Crazy Horse on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
The third and fourth questions are:

  1. Which technology would be quicker to market? As I understand nukes take a little while to build, sustainables not quite so much, even if the grid sometimes needs to be extended while they're being built.

  2. If the free marketeers love free markets so much, why are they largely promoting the quasi-state organised not-really-free nuke market so over the rather more entrepreneurial sustainables market?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 02:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 1)
wish i had a 10 to give you, crazy horse...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
Looking at the last several thousand years of history, where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology?

That's why we are building systems which will not need any management or oversight, systems based on how the natural world works.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 1)
You can build a plant which won't need management or oversight for thousands of years?

Neat trick. How does that work, exactly?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
Like this.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: