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 -
I have a nuclear engineer in my distant family (and I cry every time I compare his salary to mine), so by the transitive property I am about 12.5% qualified to comment on this haha. (And I do try and keep up with nuclear power)
To an extent, the US does indirectly assist other countries in getting domestic nuclear power up and running. If you're a talented engineer from an allied or at least neutral country, you have every chance to study under the best in the States and then bring your knowhow back home, assuming you don't get hooked and settle down right there. You're then a prize for any competent government you hail from, that seeks to establish their own nuclear power plants. Of course, many countries, like Russia, China, India and so on, independently began their own power/weapon programs, because of some degree of hostility from the States (and the Soviets drank directly from the source).
I emphasize competent, most countries that strongly desire nuclear power have programs up and running, and many who would love to have nuclear power either lack state capacity or are untrustworthy/volatile.
If the US decided to operate nuclear plants in such nations, well, for one, the latter would be effectively ceding a great deal of sovereignty, I do not foresee the State Department being happy in the least to operate a plant that isn't secured by US forces, and with strict vetting and control over who works there. It would work closer to a military base rather than say, an embassy, and also prove to be a liability in case of the kind of volatility that many potential hosts suffer from.
Then there's also the usual slowdown or red tape from environmental lobbyists, which is bad enough for nuclear power in the States.
This is not to say that this isn't a good idea, it is, as far as I'm concerned. Sadly not every good idea gets pursued, and the US has enough trouble just keeping their own domestic nuclear from going under. Plus with how cheap renewables have gotten, you might as well just ship them solar panels and batteries, with much less in the way of domestic or international opposition, or the inconvenient considerations about what to do when a state falls to a coup, a revolution, or simply turns hostile.
I think the most elegant solution would be something along the lines of running a thick power cable from a nuclear-powered ship, along the lines of an aircraft carrier. You isolate yourself from a great deal of the troubles on land, and have the option to cut and run at a moment's notice if needed. Presumably existing aircraft carriers have other things to be doing, but the Navy are the experts when it comes to modular, reliable and most importantly portable nuclear power, and have been so for decades. China is currently exploring nuclear-powered cargo ships, likely both because it's a sensible idea in itself, and because they want to minimize reliance on oil in case Taiwan goes hot. Such a ship, with some modifications, would probably be a great design for nuclear power on tap.
Do the newer small reactor designs effectively discourage proliferation? I'm not familiar with the nuclear specifics, but it seems like the risk factor of your average tinpot dictator seizing the plants and using them to generate plutonium for weapons remains. I could see it working within friendly jurisdictions, though.
While this is true for electricity generation, especially in tropical latitudes, last I heard it isn't as practical as you might like for heating applications in colder climates. There isn't a storage technology today that can convert, say, Canada's long summer days into heating on its cold, long winter nights. And unfortunately most sources tend to mix "energy" and "electricity" breakdown in ways that make overall consumption numbers difficult to evaluate. Canada primarily heats houses with forced-air furnaces (combustion) and electric baseboard (which follows the grid's energy sources -- in winter -- which varies by province).
A complete elimination of fossil fuels probably requires a wholesale shift to electric (ideally heat pump) heating, which I only rarely see accounted for in energy discussions: it quite possibly changes grid energy usage patterns enough to require even more generation, and some substantive transmission changes.
They do.
A lot of modern designs are made to be modular, operated sealed for years and refuelled only in factory. Breeding plutonium next to the reactor can be prevented by sealing access.
Power plants today have links and continual monitoring. No big deal with internet.
Proliferation isn't really the problem...
I'd be curious to read more if you have any sources to recommend. I'm less concerned for this particular point about proliferation while the plant is monitored and controlled from the West and more about a dictator that nationalizes it and is free to (ignoring workplace safety, as is dictatorial tradition) disassemble it and focus on a weapons program. But I'm not really an expert here, so perhaps that's not the concern, or we just exclude countries at risk of such things, although that hasn't been the most predictable in the past.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
New York has already banned new natural gas hookups in favor of everyone being stuck with barely-any-heat pumps. And they're shutting down generation, not building new; they tried to get New Jersey to generate for them (North Bergen Liberty Generating Station) but the NJ governor is opposed. (Personally as an NJ resident I'd say go ahead and build, and put a special tax on the power generated, the "green silliness tax")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link