It’s expensive, it’s dangerous, and, to top it off, its susceptible to catastrophic failure.

Microproduction is not.

Let’s put some things straight. I am here relaying two different posts, one by Amory Lovins, one by John Robb. Without being an expert, I’m indeed opposed to nuclear power, but as always, open to debate. You call critique of nuclear power misinformed, that is not enough, you have to improve/disprove the arguments and facts of those you disagree with. Experts like Amory Lovins say that nuclear energy is uneconomical and depletable within 40 years, and I have found no one yet to deny that it will saddle humanity with tens of thousands of years of very dangerous nuclear pollution. Why then does it make sense to divert limited financial resources to such a dead end, which can only delay the transition to a renewable economy. This would require very strong arguments, the onus is on those who want a heavy subsidized, uneconomical and long-term polluting alternative to renewables.

The people who read this blog, most of them do not read the mailing list debates, so don’t assume they know your arguments, and this is an invitation of sorts to undertake the debate for a broader public. I’m really disappointed that you resort to innuendo and personal attacks instead, and that it seems to be a hot button issue that precludes rational debate.

Let’s also not forget that on the mailing list it is you who ridiculed the opponents of nuclear power as uninformed, which is surely not the best way to start a reasoned debate on the issue.

I hope other proponents of nuclear power can do better!

Michel

John Robb didn’t even mention nuclear in his article, nor was his article a critique of nuclear power, as you imply with this game-set-match post. Don’t drag the p2pf into the muck of your own extreme biases against nuclear power. You have previously said “I don’t have time to really explore the energy debate,” which means you have already disqualified yourself from joining in a rational discourse about the subject. Rational discourse REQUIRES exploring an issue.

Ryan’s courteous responses to your hyperbole speak well of his character. I have less virtue: I’m simply tired of it. I seriously don’t know what happened–whether you’re stressed, or so anti-nuclear to the core you can’t even question the belief. I had let your final email in the nuclear thread lie, even though I (and Ryan) was accused of being one of “those that want to poison our planet for tens of thousands of years,” as you so tactfully put it.

I can’t say I was surprised by the absence, here on the p2pf blog, of the material I wrote about understanding and exploring the nuclear vs fossil fuel issue. They’re not exactly p2p material, anyway. Apparently, however, my explanation of how to calculate actual solar power wattage–as compared to “peak wattage”–was acceptable enough to add to the blog, and without even mentioning it to me!

Disappointing.

Ryan,

there are plenty of experts, green and otherwise, who challenge your view, and the whole point is that it may be very difficult or likely impossible to maintain modern social standards in the context of peak oil, and that why you accept the hyper-pollution of unsolvable nuclear waste as inevitable. And what about the people who have not reached today’s social standards? If everybody has a car, large suburban house, is that possible with the limited means of our planet. The answer is not, and nuclear energy, as argued by Amory Lovins is not just sustainable and economical.

The difference is that subsidizing renewable energy aims to make it sustainable after 150 years of large subsidies for the oil economy, but subsidies for nuclear, based on depletable resources, are not going to make it economical or sustainable, so it is a pure waste, and one that is wholly negative since it will result in the lack of support for renewables, hence delaying our capacity for change.

You are not bringing any new arguments on the table here?

Michel

As you know, I disagree. I believe the answer is microproduction AND nuclear. Realistically, there is no way to maintain modern social standards and not use conventional centralized power production. I agree innovation will advance better through decentralized models. I am no fan of big government spending on, for example, fission. But in the great scheme, it’s a small sum.

The real answer is to minimize carbon. The anti-nukers have hurt society by removing focus from that key target. Even though it was unintentional, this consequence of the anti-nuclear movement will prove one of the most destructive moral positions of modern times if it stands. Already, the added costs have done tremendous social damage.

Nuclear is, regrettably, a necessity.