This is pretty much me as well.
I mean, the Titanic wasn’t supposed to sink, bridges aren’t supposed to just collapse, and Trump wasn’t supposed to be electable, yet here we are.
Tim_N
5116
I think a better name for it is “academic study”, and the researchers better labelled as “academics” and not “scientists” as stated in the article, as none of the authors come from hard science departments.
After reading the experiment design, I don’t think it implies what the article is suggesting (that there is an irrational bias against nuclear power). Revealing the label ‘nuclear’ will give the respondent extra information on which to base their decision, beyond the information that is provided by the researchers. If this extra information is useful/rational then they use the knowledge of that label to create a better allocation of energy technologies, if it is from irrational fear or bias then the added information has led to a less optimal allocation.
The design of the experiment does not allow the authors to argue anything regarding the former or the latter. They try to suggest the latter is more likely by saying that the information they provide covers true actuarial risk (along with carbon emissions etc.), so they call the motivation to allocating less nuclear power ‘dread’ (an evocative term to get press interest in the article, good job researchers!). Yet there are many other factors relevant to energy generation, and their death numbers do not cover all of the moments of the risk distribution.
Timex
5117
Sure, they come from engineering policy departments. There inherently some element of social sciences involved in that, although i still tend to think such things are science.
Based on other articles that talk about this paper in more depth (I’m not interested in paying for this one paper), it appears that they cite other works to establish that the irrational fear of risk is a major component of people’s decision making in this topic, and that their experiment here was more about establishing the magnitude of the effect.
But again, I’ve not read this entire paper.
The other factor is how close are we to Fusion reactors? ST40 looks like it’s on pace for 2030:
From 2017:
And they hit their 100 million degrees Celsius goal in June 2018:
https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/hotter-than-the-centre-of-the-sun-uk-prototype-reaches-15-million-degrees-paving-the-way-for-commercial-fusion-energy/
The ‘ST40’ device in which this was achieved was built by Tokamak Energy and commissioned in 2017. It is the third machine in a five-stage plan to achieve abundant, clean fusion energy. The company plans to produce industrial scale energy by 2025…
… Our aim is to make fusion energy a commercial reality by 2030.
Isn’t “fusion is always 10 years away” a meme at this point? Still, good see some efforts taking shape.
6 years for Commercial, if we are to take them at their word. They did hit their 2018 Plasma temp goal however, so that’s definitely in their favor.
ShivaX
5121
I’ll believe it when we actually get a fusion reaction that generates power.
“In 6 years we’ll have a commercial reactor for a thing we still can’t even do in a lab.”
Yeah… no you wont. I’d love to be proven wrong, but they’re basically talking about cars before we have the internal combustion engine, imo.
antlers
5122
Also, fusion will generate plenty of radioactive waste; fusion creates a big neutron flux (that’s how you get the energy out). That means that your reactor vessel gets radioactive over time. The fuel doesn’t become waste, but everything else is similar to existing nuclear reactors.
God. These people.
-xtien
“Mr. Chairman, this just isn’t a serious conversation.”
Timex
5124
I’m actually impressed that Massie has a bachelors in EE and masters in ME from MIT.
I would not have expected that.
Jesus. I can’t imagine having to deal with these people every single day.
On an unrelated note, I was reading a climate change discussion on another forum and they linked to a really neat and easy to use resource for learning about the current energy mix:
https://www.iea.org/statistics/?country=WORLD&year=2016&category=Energy%20supply&indicator=TPESbySource&mode=chart&dataTable=BALANCES
In particular it is good as it makes clear the differences between “electricity” generation and total energy supply (e.g. the energy used for transport, industry, agriculture, etc.)
The key problem:
Maybe they should use it to build the wall? that would be a deterrent… ;)
On the extreme pessimist side of things…
Oh, it could get very bad.
In 2015, a study in the Journal of Mathematical Biology pointed out that if the world’s oceans kept warming, by 2100 they might become hot enough to “stop oxygen production by phyto-plankton by disrupting the process of photosynthesis.” Given that two-thirds of the Earth’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton, that would “likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”
The political class, as anyone who has followed its progress over the past three years can surely now see, is chaotic, unwilling and, in isolation, strategically incapable of addressing even short-term crises, let alone a vast existential predicament. Yet a widespread and wilful naivety prevails: the belief that voting is the only political action required to change a system. Unless it is accompanied by the concentrated power of protest – articulating precise demands and creating space in which new political factions can grow – voting, while essential, remains a blunt and feeble instrument.
The media, with a few exceptions, is actively hostile. Even when broadcasters cover these issues, they carefully avoid any mention of power, talking about environmental collapse as if it is driven by mysterious, passive forces, and proposing microscopic fixes for vast structural problems. The BBC’s Blue Planet Live series exemplified this tendency.
Those who govern the nation and shape public discourse cannot be trusted with the preservation of life on Earth. There is no benign authority preserving us from harm. No one is coming to save us. None of us can justifiably avoid the call to come together to save ourselves.
Every nonlinear transformation in history has taken people by surprise. As Alexei Yurchak explains in his book about the collapse of the Soviet Union – Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More – systems look immutable until they suddenly disintegrate. As soon as they do, the disintegration retrospectively looks inevitable. Our system – characterised by perpetual economic growth on a planet that is not growing – will inevitably implode. The only question is whether the transformation is planned or unplanned. Our task is to ensure it is planned, and fast. We need to conceive and build a new system based on the principle that every generation, everywhere has an equal right to enjoy natural wealth.
To be honest this fellow’s rhetoric is more radical than I’m comfortable with. On the other hand, how do you determine “reasonable” when the habitability of Earth is at stake?
I think reducing carbon output isn’t going to do a whole lot other than delay the execution. I think the only thing at this point that can save us is science. They need to risk some unknown catastrophe and do something to alter the environment.
antlers
5134
When most people are unwilling to switch to a vegetarian diet, which is the step an individual can take that will have the most climate change impact, I’m skeptical that people are going to be taking to the streets for civil disobedience.
