tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5813525365834911757.post3113240143500727602..comments2023-11-05T01:53:40.235-06:00Comments on the Hipcrime Vocab: Technology, Innovation, and the Blowback PrincipleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5813525365834911757.post-28051623351452314102012-04-26T12:46:21.790-05:002012-04-26T12:46:21.790-05:00I think the best comment to your article on EB poi...I think the best comment to your article on EB pointed out that we cannot even maintain the US highway system after 60 years, so how can we be expected to maintain nuclear facilities and waste disposal sites for a thousand? Look at how the earliest suburbs are falling apart already. It' because our maintenance systems rely on future growth. This is detailed well here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/suburban-america-ponzi-scheme-case-study-2011-10?op=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/suburban-america-ponzi-scheme-case-study-2011-10?op=1</a><br /><br />This article talks about suburbia, but the same came dynamic applies to nuclear plants as well as to streets and buildings - these things are usually financed by borrowed money. If the payback on the bonds is too low, maintenance is deferred in the hope that something bad won't happen, in sort of sick type of faith-based insurance (the same one used by many US citizens for health care). <br /><br />The best idea would be to recognize that energy is necessary for an industrial society to funtion, and to make nationalized power plants exempt from financial strains by "printing" the money required to make sure they function adequately - sort of a resource-based system. Right now the government is dependant upon tax revenues from the private sector which will certainly decline as the economy deteriorates (assuming they even pay them). Such a solution would be too close to socialism to have any chance of flying in America where the private sector and current financial system are worshipped with religious intensity. People always point out that Chernobyl happened under a socialist system, but I'm not sure it's totally applicable (the SU had it's own unique set of problems). Still, politically I can't see this happening anywhere (Europe? China?)<br /><br />Nuclear power creates additional problems and blowback that are so epic in scale as to boggle the mind, like waste that lasts as long a civilization has existed and failures that render entire regions of the planet uninhabitable. We can't get it wrong, and I'm almost certain we will. I like your suggestion of failing gracefully and appropraite technology (along with conservation, of course). But of course they cannot fuel the permanent expansion required to maintain the status quo, which is really what we're talking about.escapefromwisconsinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369565788469048090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5813525365834911757.post-60243978696866389502012-04-25T11:06:06.339-05:002012-04-25T11:06:06.339-05:00That's a good point---that countries at either...That's a good point---that countries at either end of the ideological spectrum (SU, US/Japan) haven't been able to make nuclear work is a sign that it might just be too difficult given the social structures we have in place today.<br /><br />The key issue, upon thinking about it a bit more, is that all people are psychologically biased to discount the future to some extent. 40 years is a long time in the future, long enough that the issue of externalities happening in 40 years are basically unimportant to today's thinking (setting aside the issue that there will probably be less money and resources to deal with the waste in 40 years).barathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985128800963474684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5813525365834911757.post-74129843223706170242012-04-23T18:36:09.270-05:002012-04-23T18:36:09.270-05:00It strikes me that your article on EB today is rel...It strikes me that your article on EB today is relative to this topic: if you introduce nuclear into a society fixated upon short-term profit and offloading externalities onto the less fortunate, rather than the kinds of tight controls and regulations required, you're going to have a problem. I'm not sure we have the type of society we need to make nuclear work. The cost of failure might be way too high relative to the benefit. Communist societies like the FSU and more recently Japan have both failed at keeping nuclear safe.escapefromwisconsinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369565788469048090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5813525365834911757.post-40096591263347791562012-04-23T18:22:11.902-05:002012-04-23T18:22:11.902-05:00Hey thanks, great blog. And I noticed the post on ...Hey thanks, great blog. And I noticed the post on Energy Bulletin too.escapefromwisconsinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369565788469048090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5813525365834911757.post-70485723411062765252012-04-22T13:06:40.090-05:002012-04-22T13:06:40.090-05:00Nice post. There's a lot here to respond to, ...Nice post. There's a lot here to respond to, so I'll have to chew on it for a while. I did want to pass along <a href="http://contraposition.org/blog/2012/04/10/the-invisible-technological-midpoint/" rel="nofollow">my post on a similar topic</a> from a couple of weeks ago, if it's of interest.barathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985128800963474684noreply@blogger.com