Meta_Digital t1_is7d36v wrote
Nuclear is preferable to fossil fuels, of course, but it runs into a fatal problem; it's incompatible with capitalism. Plants are expensive and time consuming to build, and the returns simply don't come within the timescale this economic system (especially in its late stage) allows.
It's also a very incomplete solution. Energy isn't just produced and then that's the end of it. It's used, and what it's used for tends to be in the extraction, refining, manufacturing, and transportation of goods. All of these activities are just as (or more) damaging than the production of energy itself, especially if we consider the extreme levels of energy one can acquire from nuclear sources.
Ultimately, the answer is degrowth, because the scale and speed of our economy is the true engine for climate change. It's extremely reductionist to view it as a problem of CO2 levels. Especially under capitalism, producing massive amounts of cheap energy simply saves companies on energy expenses and allows them to consume more energy for the same price. This is Jevon's Paradox.
The conversation about nuclear power, I believe, is more of a distraction than a real attempt at a solution to climate change. Ultimately, capitalism as a belief and practice is at the core of environmental destruction, and as a result, technological solutions will simply empower the capitalist system to sacrifice the health of the planet for the short term profit of the owning class. Even if nuclear didn't have the problems of potential accidents, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons, it would still have more costs than benefits if we don't also radically restructure society to fundamentally change how we employ technology.
Keepersofthearcane t1_is87kfg wrote
I'll bite, if you throw out accidents, nuclear waste amd nuclear weapons, how does nuclear have more costs than benefits? I hope your answer is not, "because it allows capitalism to continue"
Southern_Winter t1_is8k5ee wrote
Why did you link to a Wikipedia article about Jevon's Paradox that argues that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption? It's not at all clear to what extent this occurs, and it shouldn't be taken for granted that it happens to the degree you claim it does.
"However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the effect arising.[3]"
If you have something philosophical to say about the merits of capitalism, you ought to make a separate point, or at the very least tie the two together in a coherent way.
Pezotecom t1_is7ym8w wrote
This fallacious idea of capitalism not thinking in long terms has long been refuted. We don't even have to go to the roots of ideas for this, just watch the major corporations today and their plans. Uber's been losing money for a lot of years, and many other enterprises are in the same venue. Amazon keeps getting more and more sophisticated and you can barely call it a 'marketplace' today given the scope of its operations and the general road they want to take.
If anything, I believe this 'nuclear is incompatible with capitalism' is more like 'nuclear is incompatible with the free market' because unless you find a way to calm everyone, you are always a threat to people everywhere. The disaster chernobyl could have caused to the entire world means nobody, not even a government should run something so devastating as such. Same for nuclear weapons.
VitriolicViolet t1_is87xx9 wrote
>This fallacious idea of capitalism not thinking in long terms has long been refuted.
nope.
industry chose renewables due to the massive short term profits associated with it, if we wanted lowest costs over a 100 year period nuclear would have been done a decade ago.
instead we are gambling on Battery RnD pulling super batteries out of a hat in order to go renewable.
seems to me like a choice motivated solely by profit seeking.
also fucking lol what threat? coal alone has released more radiation than all nuclear technologies and accidents combined, killed more people than all nuclear technologies and accidents combined.
only the irrational fear nuclear or think its worse then fossil fuels.
Pezotecom t1_is8bzpq wrote
At some point you need to give credit to the financial system and agree it's efficient.
If we at least assume that, then we are giving incredible leaps towards an even more energy intensive society. At least that's what data shows. What I mean by this is that the market is incredibly good at directing resources, in this case, energy, where its needed. Can we do it better? hell yes. I am not sure how a couple of benevolent geniuses would outperform decades of market capitalism, if you sugest some people actually know better than the decentralized system.
And about pollution: yes, I agree on what you said. But you can't deny that even that can't compare to the absolute wreck chernobyl could have been. That's a huge precedent and actually having fear of it is more than rational.
jonbest66 t1_is7qaaz wrote
>Nuclear is preferable to fossil fuels, of course, but it runs into a fatal problem; it's incompatible with capitalism. Plants are expensive and time consuming to build, and the returns simply don't come within the timescale this economic system (especially in its late stage) allows.
Yeah france is the least capitalistic country in the world, you got it mate.
P.s. Fuck atomic energy;)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments