Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric73's avatar

And here I was about to talk about how impressed I was with your history lesson (very nice analysis, btw), and then you had to serve up the stereotypical nuclear-bro pugnacity, wherein nuclear energy is opposed because "people are stupid".

Sorry, I know this isn't the focus of your piece, but this triggers me. Not because I'm against nuclear energy (I'm not), but because this type of attitude doesn't help people trying to make the case for it.

Those who make this argument, that "Very misguided (but consistently effective) protestors have led a lot of people to reflexively oppose nuclear without knowing why" are being intentionally obtuse. People aren't scared of nuclear energy because of protestors. They're scared of it because they've seen what happens when things go wrong.

Nobody needed protestors to be horrified by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukushima. Not to mention that we spent almost all of the remainder of the 20th Century worried about death as a result of weaponry based on the same technology – weaponry that we know horrifically and instantly killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. Advocates of nuclear energy brush these objections away with abstract arguments about the number of deaths per unit of energy generated with nuclear technology, declaring it the "safest form of energy" and acting as if anyone who isn't immediately comforted by this is just an irrational ape holding back society with their defective monkey-brain.

My educational background is in mathematics, so I take comfort in statistics more than most people, but even I understand why people are uncomfortable with nuclear energy. It is entirely human to fixate on worst-case scenarios, regardless of how improbable. You can say that it's an irrational degree of concern about a rational possibility, but it's how our brains work, and even in the most certain of cases, trying to convince someone of your argument by calling them stupid for having reservations based on situations that *we've seen come to pass* is arguably just as stupid.

Not to mention, the nuclear argument may not even be the most certain of cases. I'm no expert on this, but I know that there is considerable ambiguity to estimates of deaths due to nuclear accidents. They are ridiculously low if you just count immediate deaths that are incontrovertibly caused by the accidents per se; they're potentially much higher if you count eventual deaths due to radiation exposure, but those are highly speculative. Furthermore, calculations based on the fact that there have been only a handful of large scale nuclear incidents are relying on that same proportionality going forward, but that sort of calculation is tricky when you're talking about small numbers of freak accidents. Each such accident has a large potential for damage and loss of life; advocates of nuclear power can dismiss them by pointing out what mistakes were made in hindsight and saying that those are easily correctible, but that's the problem with freak accidents – there is always the potential for something to go wrong because people didn't think to pay enough attention to it until it caused a problem. But when the potential damage caused by an accident is large enough, forcing us to rely on a consistent low rate of them, that is reason for concern.

Also, there are other things that can go wrong outside of full scale meltdowns, such as subtle leaks of radioactive material into the atmosphere which can go unnoticed for significant periods of time. And this can happen at places other than nuclear plants, such as fuel reprocessing and fabrication centers. The more one relies on nuclear energy, the more need there will be to produce fissible materials, and the more risk we run of having such accidents – and that's not even considering the risk of *intentional* (mis)uses of such materials by terrorists or adversaries.

It should also be pointed out that nuclear energy production has undergone advances in recent years such that *modern* nuclear reactors address many of the concerns of traditional nuclear power plants. They're much safer, more environmentally friendly, and avoid the enormous cost of plant production. And that's a *huge* part of the argument going forward for justifying renewed investment in them. But by the same token, assessments of their dangers should not be projected backward onto older technology to imply that people were "stupid" for having serious concerns about their safety, or that they just opposed nuclear technology because a bunch of radicals convinced them it was bad without them understanding why. People know why they opposed nuclear energy, even if you want to argue that their rationale doesn't withstand statistical scrutiny.

Anyway, nice piece otherwise, and I think your overall point is well taken. The hype from recent advances has been absurd at times, generated largely by the same people who stand to profit from them, and has a lot to do with people being bedazzled by LLMs and their linguistic fluency while disregarding their serious limitations.

Sorry to dump all over you because of one paragraph, and I hope you see my criticisms as at least being in good faith.

Expand full comment
Frank Lee's avatar

I believe I have been blessed, or else have learned to, visualize a future state. During my corporate career it helped me better perform against my peers who at best would seem to barely correctly characterize the present, and tended to be more reactionary. The downside is that I have often taken risks to achieve something that has been brought down by unsee-able events that are generally the result of the majority being incapable to see and thus critical reactionary.

That is the challenge for all profound progress to be made. It isn't the accuracy of the vision, it is the painful and laborious job to convince the other 90% that cannot grasp what it would be like.

In my small liberal college town of about 90,000 residents when school is in session, the debate rages over growth with the NIMBYs generally prevailing. The debate at the time was densification of the core downtown... specifically an ordinance to restrict the size of the buildings to 3 stories or less. In one city planning commission session that was standing-room only participated, I came prepared with a number of foam-board-mounted photos, and I asked for a show of hands in the room "how many people have traveled to cities in old Europe and like the way their cities are designed. Almost everyone raised their hands. Then I showed the photos of cities in Europe with four to six story buildings lining the narrow streets. There was a lot of silence in the crowd. It made an impact.

These people were incapable of seeing a future state that met their aesthetic expectations and were thus afraid of and against of making any changes. It was only when presented specific images that their brains could process the "what can be" opportunity.

That is the challenge with nuclear power. People are afraid and yet there is really not enough effort going into the presentation of what has been developed and what will be developed, and how it will effectively eliminate the risk of any radioactive emissions disaster. Plentiful, safe and (should be cheaper) nuclear power replacing oil, natural gas and coal power generation will effectively eliminate enough carbon emissions to meet all reasonable goals to combat global warming (even though I still think that project is a WEF globalist scam).

There is copious programing that feed the fear of climate change, but a pittance of programming on what is being worked on to solve the problems. It is all fear and a demand for scarcity instead of hope and a vision of abundance.

The lack of this help to move the vision-less population toward a better understanding of what the future can be tells me that there are power people in control of the influence machinery with a vested interest to prevent it.

Or we are just missing the need to do that hard work to present and explain, in graphic form, what the future can be.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts