a page on energy issues with relevance to human behaviour too

A new preamble and summary

This page is more relevant than ever. But it's time to freshen it a little, just with a new preamble.

This is not just about nuclear power. The same problems come up with other polarised discussions, such as those on GM crops, abortion and pornography.

And if I dare speak my mind on any of these issues often I find myself vilified by both sides. I find this unpleasant of course but also encouraging. In such a discussion this may be a sign that you are making sense! It is something like the middle path of Buddhism, or the role of the prophet in Christianity.

On one of the forums I frequent I was recently assured that current environmental thinking is no longer anti-nuclear. I wish it were true. We have made progress but we are not there yet.

Many people have made great investments in the anti-nuclear campaign, and most have received returns on that investment that they value, and which are continuing.

The investments are not just in time and money, but more important, in hopes and dreams, in respect and self-respect, It is not easy to write any of those off.

The returns have been in comradeship, in recognition, in feeling important, and for some in careers and money. And they would like these to continue of course. 

It is not easy at all.

The original preamble

In view of the evidence and concern surrounding global warming and climate change, it's perhaps surprising that environmental opposition to nuclear power hasn't reversed, or at least fizzled out.

Perhaps it's in the process of doing so. But it's certainly taking its time. Why?

Some commentators of course say it's simply because nuclear isn't even part of the solution anyway. But this flies in the face of the evidence. See Energy reality for more on that.

Others say it's because nuclear isn't a complete solution, because it's too slow to build, because existing proven technologies are unsuitable for small-scale local production, and because in some parts of the world it's currently uneconomic anyway (and it is but shouldn't be, see Are nukes economically viable). But this misses the point completely.

Nuclear power is an important part of any rational plan to address the threat of climate change. That's all. But it's enough to bring us back to a bit of a puzzle. To call a spade a spade, why are so many "environmentalists" still working so hard to destroy the environment? Because that's what they're doing, isn't it? See climate change denial and the anti nuclear movement.

Is it perhaps politics? (;->

There's more to politics than politicians, but let us start with them.

Politicians

Politicians don't often admit to being wrong. To get any major change in government policy, you almost always need to change the government. But it's much worse than that. When writing any political speech, the conclusion is written first. First the policy is decided, and then the evidence is found to support it. It's called spin.

Politicians may claim to be leaders, and it's in their interests to look like leaders, and they even need leadership skills to get elected. But in politics they are generally followers. With rare and beautiful exceptions, they say whatever they think will get them elected.

So that means there's a certain political inertia defending the status quo. But it's deeper than that. What politicians say does influence public opinion, and they have enormous opportunity to do this but rarely take it. What they say has an inertia all of its own.

And before we get to the general public, there are other, possibly even more significant participants.

The Big End of Town

One obvious stakeholder is the big end of town. We can expect Big Coal for example to resist nuclear power unless they have shares in it too. I think the public generally see through this, and so does for example Greenpeace. It's one of the reasons they don't accept any corporate donations in any form.

Another stakeholder is the energy utilities. For example, they can be expected to support large-scale "solar farms" rather than point of use solar roofs. It's obviously greener in every sense to use the same solar cells locally, but it doesn't fit their business model. In fact it may even bypass them completely.  

Environmental groups and consultants

Another stakeholder is lobby groups such as Greenpeace. Their support base and their staff alike have a strong commitment to the anti-nuclear agenda. That's another source of inertia. Change is risky. See Patrick Moore and Greenpeace for an example of someone who tried.

But that's not to say we should swallow Moore's agenda whole following his epiphany. He and other "independent" consultants are also stakeholders. That's how he now makes his money, as an author and a speaker and a "consultant". And that's not to say that everything they say is wrong, any more than it can all be assumed to be right. Ad_hominem arguments may be good politics but they are terrible logic, and (like all spin) they only lead to good decisions by pure accident.

Just because someone is a scientist by training doesn't make everything they say science. They are human too. Scientists love to change their minds. Pseudoscientists hate to do so. That's one way to tell the true expert from the others, and especially from genuine experts in one field talking in other areas in which they may even be unexpert.

You

And so we get down to the public. They (you) are the key to change. 

Mother_Teresa said that the biggest problem in the world is loneliness. Greta_Thunberg implies that it's apathy. I think they are both right. So people are desperate to find meaning, to feel important, and what could be more important and meaningful than Saving The World? It can be a dangerous combination. 

I am sure that those who campaigned to close down the undamaged Three Mile Island reactor hardly noticed or cared that it was replaced by fossil fuel, and that the fracking to supply this "cheap" gas released radioactive waste into the environment. They don't want to know. They are too busy feeling important because of what they and many others would like to see as success. 

What are your agendas? Do you have any idea why you believe what you do?

Probably it needs generational change to restart the nuclear industry in some parts of the world. But if that's all it needs it will happen. It's just a matter of time. Perhaps it already is, see the nuclear tipping point. 

As the Joint Secretariat for Action for World Development (an initiative by the churches of Australia back in the 1970s) said (and it probably wasn't original even then):

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Assess the assessor, and good luck.