This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Possible Nuclear Power Push in Texas
Today, the state government's commission on nuclear power expansion released a report(https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/TANRWG_Advanced_Nuclear_Report_v11.17.24c_.pdf) pushing for Texas to invest in nuclear energy. Not normally a huge deal, but the report was specifically requested by Greg Abbott and is released at the traditional time for Texas to set policy goals. There are seven policy recommendations:
Create a state agency for coordinating, enacting, and funding the nuclear industry.
Create a unified point of contact for permitting nuclear projects, to simplify bureaucratic requirements.
Expand related programs in state run trade schools(and Texas public technical education is generally acknowledged as a thing the state does well at in general), with substantial industry input.
Foster necessary manufacturing capabilities locally.
Public outreach about the benefits of nuclear power.
State fund to mitigate the risk of project cancellation.
State fund to mitigate the capital costs of nuclear plant construction.
Now I legitimately find this all interesting, and I'm curious for motteizean feedback on the helpfulness/practicability of those seven items and the further considerations listed afterwards in the document. I'm particularly interested in if fancy economic structures are helpful.
As to why this is an even bigger deal 1) the document explicitly calls for requesting a delegation of federal authority by an act of congress and 2) the GOP is going to need something to run on after Trump. The 'red state model' is already the most likely and Abbott has presidential ambitions. Plus, the timeline is about right for it to become a national level issue in 2028. Particularly if the Trump administration doesn't have a particularly good four years, the GOP is just going to need to start running on copying what successful red states do on the national level, and Texas is the biggest wealthiest and most successful red state. Even partial success can have major implications.
Between cheap gas, cheap solar, and limited grid interconnects, Texas is a weird place to be boosting nuclear because it can't possibly compete. It's the north that needs it desperately.
I think that’s probably true for low temperature reactors. If higher temperature gas or metal reactors become available in the future I think it could be a real bonanza for a place like Texas for direct heating applications in the petrochemical industry (imagine how mad green peace would be over a nuclear heated oil refinery).
More options
Context Copy link
Texas recently had a bad power outage during a cold snap which I don't think more solar would solve. And Texas is growing quickly. Abbott is probably trying to get ahead of the curve; power outages make us and him look bad and do actual material damage. In terms of predictable scandals that could seriously harm Abbott and/or his party, more grid problems is probably up there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link