If I may, could it be that the west has given proper consideration to nuclear power for fifty years and found it lacking? My understanding is that it is uneconomical. As to Germany shutting down three nuclear power plants in the midst of a dearth of fossil fuel and renewable energy, perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact that governments rarely act in the best interests of its people.
Hi Tim, my general understanding for the reasons behind nuclear power shutdowns is (1) controversy surrounding nuclear waste disposal as well as (2) society's generalized concern for another Cherenobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima incident. My understanding is there is not any controversy that nuclear energy is by far the most efficient energy, at least next to fossil fuels. But I've also read that the latest nuclear power designs are far safer than prior designs; one would think there must be some way to deal with these political issues when nuclear power is so much more efficient than other forms of energy.
If you think any of this response is incorrect, I would be interested in seeing whatever you come up with on it -- thank you.
Agreed on points 1 and 2. I fall into both of those categories personally. That's interesting that we have seemingly opposite understandings on the efficiency of nuclear for electricity generation. If you are correct, then I imagine that nuclear will win out eventually in the economic sphere, especially as fossil fuels continue to deplete. I haven't personally studied the efficiencies of nuclear power, and so can't debate your last point effectively. In that matter I go by the educated opinions of others, and maybe I need to do some research personally.
Do you see nuclear energy (via electricity generation) replacing fossil fuels as the go to energy source in the future? Assuming politics doesn't get in the way, of course.
Hi Tim, I can't speak to the far future, but current trends are toward shuttering nuclear power plants for political reasons with attempts at reaching "Net Zero" emissions via an extreme reduction in western standards of living. See this Substack post on the UK's publicly stated target to reach Net Zero by 2050 as an example: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/what-will-the-net-zero-by-2050-target
I'm definitely not in favor of that, as life is going to be miserable for most people under such conditions...
If global elites are really concerned about global warming and CO2 emissions as they claim, here is an abstract entitled "Comparison of cost efficiencies of nuclear power and renewable energy generation in mitigating CO2 emissions" which implies that "if the current amount of electricity generation is one megawatt-hour, the cost of mitigating CO2 emissions by 1% is $3.044 for nuclear power generation and $7.097 for renewable energy generation": https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820449/
My understanding is that (1) oil, gas, and coal reserves are rapidly depleting (we have to dig deep underground to mine them and/or invent new, expensive technologies like fracking); (2) wind energy is erratic/unpredictable, energy inefficient and it kills a tremendous number of birds; (3) solar depends on weather conditions and it's also quite inefficient. Even battery creation involves extreme environmental damage ... it's a series of tradeoffs, but I do think the tradeoffs favor nuclear so long as power plants are built with many levels of safety redundancy.
But I am not an expert on this topic, so take all this with a grain of salt...
I was listening to a podcast today while I worked and the guest, John Michael Greer, reminded me that those in positions of authority such as the global elites and the politicians who do their bidding, are so disconnected and insulated from the real world that they are doomed to make dumb choices (like shutting down nuclear power plants in the middle of an energy crisis). It's the nature of failing civilizations like the current crop of western civs to make poor decisions because the leadership is essentially senile.
You guys have worked through all the points I would have made, so I shall leave it at that!
In my view, Western elites have lived in a prosperity bubble for so long, and been so insulated from the hard empirical realities of industrial production and energy extraction/production that they quite literally believe that Reality will bend to their will just because their ideological position says so. I don't think it is so much malice as it is that they are completely out of touch. Natuyrally they are, as many of them are lifelong politicians who have never had a real job in their lives, let alone a blue collar one. And you KNOW these critters aren't on speaking terms with the type of guys who work in these industries and know better.
It is the very definition of wanting one's cake and eating it too. Self-licking self-replenishing ice cream.
Case in point, one of the DC Beltway swamp creatures – secretary of energy I believe – has stated that in order for the US Military to be more resilient and less dependent on Russian or Saudi oil, they have to pivot hard into completely EV vehicles. What a joke!
I like a lot of this piece but have you considered that the West has gone extremely anti-meritocratic since 1970? Like the elite institutions force feed less intelligent people into positions of power (for sake of ideological sycophancy). Not to mention we outsourced all our manufacturing overseas and regulated small business/ mew industries to death. Furthermore the powers that be have spent more energy pushing societal poisons onto us (social media, public school retardation, drugs, bad food, porn, useless foreign wars) than they have actually vested any interest in technological progress.
Im just saying that perhaps in a regime change or collapse of the imperial anti-meritocracy (enforced by credentialism at traitorous, brain-worm-inducing psuedo-universities) we would see a new generation of actually smart American men inventing stuff and maintaining a modern society. There are still tinkerers and brilliant young men who could be Edisons and Ford’s, but the globocorps and intentional demoralization of society have just shut down the possibility.
Architecture isnt ugly bc industrial society is failing, its ugly bc of Globohomo.
Food isnt poisoned bc agriculture is impossible to maintained, its poisoned bc they want you to be poisoned.
I think technological progress is possible if real american men are allowed to run society. However I do rather yearn for a return to epic battles of sword and bow and calvary charges, so Id be fine with technological regression too
Hell yes, I'm always glad to see Greer get mentioned on Substack.
I stumbled onto him in 2012, and what he was saying immediately clicked with me, and gave me context for the insanity I was seeing in Phoenix..
Hell yeah man. Like him or loathe him, JMG has always seen further and more incisively than many.
Good to see more Greer-pilled writers around here.
A rare breed indeed. Well met!
Great post, thank you. It reminds me of this comment from 4chan in 2013: https://ibb.co/yYk3nxc
How do you square the decline of cheap oil with the west's unwillingness to properly consider nuclear energy as an alternative? Germany is shutting down their last 3 nuclear power plants this weekend: https://www.foxnews.com/world/german-government-dismisses-calls-delay-shutdown-countrys-last-3-nuclear-power-plants
If I may, could it be that the west has given proper consideration to nuclear power for fifty years and found it lacking? My understanding is that it is uneconomical. As to Germany shutting down three nuclear power plants in the midst of a dearth of fossil fuel and renewable energy, perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact that governments rarely act in the best interests of its people.
Hi Tim, my general understanding for the reasons behind nuclear power shutdowns is (1) controversy surrounding nuclear waste disposal as well as (2) society's generalized concern for another Cherenobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima incident. My understanding is there is not any controversy that nuclear energy is by far the most efficient energy, at least next to fossil fuels. But I've also read that the latest nuclear power designs are far safer than prior designs; one would think there must be some way to deal with these political issues when nuclear power is so much more efficient than other forms of energy.
If you think any of this response is incorrect, I would be interested in seeing whatever you come up with on it -- thank you.
NF,
Agreed on points 1 and 2. I fall into both of those categories personally. That's interesting that we have seemingly opposite understandings on the efficiency of nuclear for electricity generation. If you are correct, then I imagine that nuclear will win out eventually in the economic sphere, especially as fossil fuels continue to deplete. I haven't personally studied the efficiencies of nuclear power, and so can't debate your last point effectively. In that matter I go by the educated opinions of others, and maybe I need to do some research personally.
Do you see nuclear energy (via electricity generation) replacing fossil fuels as the go to energy source in the future? Assuming politics doesn't get in the way, of course.
Hi Tim, I can't speak to the far future, but current trends are toward shuttering nuclear power plants for political reasons with attempts at reaching "Net Zero" emissions via an extreme reduction in western standards of living. See this Substack post on the UK's publicly stated target to reach Net Zero by 2050 as an example: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/what-will-the-net-zero-by-2050-target
I'm definitely not in favor of that, as life is going to be miserable for most people under such conditions...
If global elites are really concerned about global warming and CO2 emissions as they claim, here is an abstract entitled "Comparison of cost efficiencies of nuclear power and renewable energy generation in mitigating CO2 emissions" which implies that "if the current amount of electricity generation is one megawatt-hour, the cost of mitigating CO2 emissions by 1% is $3.044 for nuclear power generation and $7.097 for renewable energy generation": https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820449/
My understanding is that (1) oil, gas, and coal reserves are rapidly depleting (we have to dig deep underground to mine them and/or invent new, expensive technologies like fracking); (2) wind energy is erratic/unpredictable, energy inefficient and it kills a tremendous number of birds; (3) solar depends on weather conditions and it's also quite inefficient. Even battery creation involves extreme environmental damage ... it's a series of tradeoffs, but I do think the tradeoffs favor nuclear so long as power plants are built with many levels of safety redundancy.
But I am not an expert on this topic, so take all this with a grain of salt...
NF,
I was listening to a podcast today while I worked and the guest, John Michael Greer, reminded me that those in positions of authority such as the global elites and the politicians who do their bidding, are so disconnected and insulated from the real world that they are doomed to make dumb choices (like shutting down nuclear power plants in the middle of an energy crisis). It's the nature of failing civilizations like the current crop of western civs to make poor decisions because the leadership is essentially senile.
You guys have worked through all the points I would have made, so I shall leave it at that!
In my view, Western elites have lived in a prosperity bubble for so long, and been so insulated from the hard empirical realities of industrial production and energy extraction/production that they quite literally believe that Reality will bend to their will just because their ideological position says so. I don't think it is so much malice as it is that they are completely out of touch. Natuyrally they are, as many of them are lifelong politicians who have never had a real job in their lives, let alone a blue collar one. And you KNOW these critters aren't on speaking terms with the type of guys who work in these industries and know better.
It is the very definition of wanting one's cake and eating it too. Self-licking self-replenishing ice cream.
Case in point, one of the DC Beltway swamp creatures – secretary of energy I believe – has stated that in order for the US Military to be more resilient and less dependent on Russian or Saudi oil, they have to pivot hard into completely EV vehicles. What a joke!
I like a lot of this piece but have you considered that the West has gone extremely anti-meritocratic since 1970? Like the elite institutions force feed less intelligent people into positions of power (for sake of ideological sycophancy). Not to mention we outsourced all our manufacturing overseas and regulated small business/ mew industries to death. Furthermore the powers that be have spent more energy pushing societal poisons onto us (social media, public school retardation, drugs, bad food, porn, useless foreign wars) than they have actually vested any interest in technological progress.
Im just saying that perhaps in a regime change or collapse of the imperial anti-meritocracy (enforced by credentialism at traitorous, brain-worm-inducing psuedo-universities) we would see a new generation of actually smart American men inventing stuff and maintaining a modern society. There are still tinkerers and brilliant young men who could be Edisons and Ford’s, but the globocorps and intentional demoralization of society have just shut down the possibility.
Architecture isnt ugly bc industrial society is failing, its ugly bc of Globohomo.
Food isnt poisoned bc agriculture is impossible to maintained, its poisoned bc they want you to be poisoned.
I think technological progress is possible if real american men are allowed to run society. However I do rather yearn for a return to epic battles of sword and bow and calvary charges, so Id be fine with technological regression too