I found this article interesting, have an upvote. In particular I didnāt know the dynamic around nuclear energy assistance being tied to nonproliferation agreements. That seems pretty cool. Iād be interested in more exploration of the effectiveness there, but I didnāt read the cited paper, so ĀÆ\_(ć)_/āĀÆ.
That said, I found this article disappointing. Like yāall, I agree that nuclear energy as many theoretical advantages. However, tragically, those advantages seem stymied by:
Unfriendly regulation
A really bad case of cost disease[1] (which may be a function of the regulation, or may not, we can for now just observe the costs)
If we donāt fix those, we wonāt see nuclear energy becoming a particularly relevant factor. Iām all for fixing those! And I was mostly expect to see yāall explain a well-worked and/āor convincing argument for optimism there. You did address both, and Iāll attempt to summarize them both, please let me know if you disagree:
āIndeed, in some parts of the world nuclear energy has the potential to engage the traditionally āclimate-scepticalā political right. Successful bipartisan legislative initiatives in the US to speed up the development of advanced nuclear reactors reflect this. It should also be noted that, even in nuclear-sceptical western countries, the popular acceptance of nuclear energy is highest among those who are living closest to nuclear reactors.ā (No summary needed! I can quote your entire argument in three sentences!)
Rougher summary for the economic challenges:
Nuclear used to be cost-competitive in the west in the 60s-80s, and still is competitive in some parts of Asia.
We can pursue approaches to cutting costs. Building automation, and Small Modular Reactors seem promising.
I will first of all grant that I am much more optimistic about nuclear energy in Asia, given what you write, which again, super interesting article, thanks a bunch.
For the rest however, I found the arguments underdeveloped. To briefly respond: All of the regulatory factors you mention are not new. Maybe weāre at the crux of an imminent shift in public opinion, but I feel like Iād need more convincing. And for costs, there have been strong economic incentives to lower costs for a long time. Any good technologist always has a story for how their technology will reduce in costs and/āor get better soon. Nevertheless, one should be skeptical of such claims. And I feel not-particularly compelled by this story.
It seems plausible to me that thereās a role for nuclear energy policy advocacy in the portfolio of solutions to climate change, but it seems smaller than the summary here makes it out to be, and I donāt currently see what it is.
Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts! Your summary seems adequate. Our main focus was on the ethical argument, not so much about whether there is reason for optimism regarding cost development. To some extent, this question is discussed in our references, though.
Cool, that makes sense. However, hereās a point I want to make: in effective altruism (and I would say, in the world at large) one needs to focus on tractability to make the base for an intervention to be an ethical priority. Otherwise, you as an agent with non-infinite resources would do better to focus on another way of achieving your goals.
To a large extent you can say, āyep, if we had more space we would devote more effort to that.ā But to this audience, who is already sympathetic to the in-theory benefits of nuclear energy, I doubt you have done much to convince me /ā them.
I found this article interesting, have an upvote. In particular I didnāt know the dynamic around nuclear energy assistance being tied to nonproliferation agreements. That seems pretty cool. Iād be interested in more exploration of the effectiveness there, but I didnāt read the cited paper, so ĀÆ\_(ć)_/āĀÆ.
That said, I found this article disappointing. Like yāall, I agree that nuclear energy as many theoretical advantages. However, tragically, those advantages seem stymied by:
Unfriendly regulation
A really bad case of cost disease[1] (which may be a function of the regulation, or may not, we can for now just observe the costs)
If we donāt fix those, we wonāt see nuclear energy becoming a particularly relevant factor. Iām all for fixing those! And I was mostly expect to see yāall explain a well-worked and/āor convincing argument for optimism there. You did address both, and Iāll attempt to summarize them both, please let me know if you disagree:
āIndeed, in some parts of the world nuclear energy has the potential to engage the traditionally āclimate-scepticalā political right. Successful bipartisan legislative initiatives in the US to speed up the development of advanced nuclear reactors reflect this. It should also be noted that, even in nuclear-sceptical western countries, the popular acceptance of nuclear energy is highest among those who are living closest to nuclear reactors.ā (No summary needed! I can quote your entire argument in three sentences!)
Rougher summary for the economic challenges:
Nuclear used to be cost-competitive in the west in the 60s-80s, and still is competitive in some parts of Asia.
We can pursue approaches to cutting costs. Building automation, and Small Modular Reactors seem promising.
I will first of all grant that I am much more optimistic about nuclear energy in Asia, given what you write, which again, super interesting article, thanks a bunch.
For the rest however, I found the arguments underdeveloped. To briefly respond: All of the regulatory factors you mention are not new. Maybe weāre at the crux of an imminent shift in public opinion, but I feel like Iād need more convincing. And for costs, there have been strong economic incentives to lower costs for a long time. Any good technologist always has a story for how their technology will reduce in costs and/āor get better soon. Nevertheless, one should be skeptical of such claims. And I feel not-particularly compelled by this story.
It seems plausible to me that thereās a role for nuclear energy policy advocacy in the portfolio of solutions to climate change, but it seems smaller than the summary here makes it out to be, and I donāt currently see what it is.
In keeping with a local dialect, I use cost disease in a slightly nonstandard, broader sense, which I got from Scott Alexander /ā Tyler Cowen.
Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts! Your summary seems adequate. Our main focus was on the ethical argument, not so much about whether there is reason for optimism regarding cost development. To some extent, this question is discussed in our references, though.
Cool, that makes sense. However, hereās a point I want to make: in effective altruism (and I would say, in the world at large) one needs to focus on tractability to make the base for an intervention to be an ethical priority. Otherwise, you as an agent with non-infinite resources would do better to focus on another way of achieving your goals.
To a large extent you can say, āyep, if we had more space we would devote more effort to that.ā But to this audience, who is already sympathetic to the in-theory benefits of nuclear energy, I doubt you have done much to convince me /ā them.