That’s for the nuclear industry to figure out. But the fact that companies from different companies originating in entirely different countries suggest that it’s a problem with the tech itself.

The hard truth many just don’t want to admit is that there are some technologies that simply aren’t practical, regardless of how objectively cool they might be. The truth is that the nuclear industry just has a very poor track record with being financially viable. It’s only ever really been scaled through massive state-run enterprises that can operate unprofitably. Before solar and wind really took off, the case could be made that we should switch to fission, even if it is more expensive, due to climate concerns. But now that solar + batteries are massively cheaper than nuclear? It’s ridiculous to spend state money building these giant white elephants when we could just slap up some more solar panels instead. We ain’t running out of space to put them any time soon.

Also 10s of billions is still insignificant for any power, transport, or healthcare infrastructure in the scheme of things -

Bullshit. If you can get the same amount of reliable power by just slapping up some solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries, then obviously the cost is not insignificant.

That sentence shows that you really aren’t thinking about this as a practical means of power generation. I’ve found that most fission boosters don’t so much like actual nuclear power, but the idea of nuclear power. It appeals to a certain kind of nerd who admires it from a physics and engineering perspective. And while it is cool technically, this tends to blind people to the actual cold realities of fission power.

There’s also a lot of conspiratorial thinking among the pro-nuclear crowd. They’ll blame nuclear’s failures on the superstitious fear of the unwashed ignorant masses or the evil machinations of groups like Greenpeace. Then, at the same time, they’ll ignore the most bone-headedly obvious cause of nuclear’s failure: it’s just too fucking expensive.

Who cares? We use economics to sort out the relative value of radically different power sources, not cherry-picked criteria. Fission boosters can say that nuclear has a small footprint. Solar boosters can say that solar has no moving parts and is thus more mechanically reliable. Fission boosters can say fission gets more power from the same mass. Solar boosters can point to the mass of the entire fission plant, including the giant concrete dome that needs to be strong enough to survive a jumbo jet flying into it.

In the end, none of this shit matters. We have a way of sorting out these complex multi-variable problems. Both fission and solar have their own relatives strengths and weaknesses that their proponents can cherry pick. But ultimately, all that matters in choosing what to deploy is cost.

And today, in the real world, in the year 2024, if you want to get low-carbon power on the grid, the most cost-effective way, by far, is solar. And you can add batteries as needed for intermittency, and you’re still way ahead of nuclear cost-wise. And as our use of solar continues to climb, we can deploy seasonal storage, which we have many, many options to deploy.

The ultimate problem fission has is that it just can’t survive in a capitalist economy. It can survive in planned economies like the Soviet Union or modern China, or it can run as a state-backed enterprise like modern Russia. But it simply isn’t cost effective enough for fission companies to be able to survive on their own in a capitalist economy.

And frankly, if we’re going to have the government subsidize things, I would much rather the money be spent on healthcare, housing, or education. A lot of fission boosters like fission simply because they think the tech is cool, not necessarily because it actually makes economic sense. I say that if fission boosters want to fund their hobby and subsidize fission plants, let them. But otherwise I am adamantly opposed to any form of subsidies for the fission industry.

Who gives a fuck about energy density beyond some physics nerds? Unless you’re planning on building a flying nuclear-powered airplane, energy density is irrelevant. This is why solar is eating fission’s lunch.

The coal mining industry employs about 38,000 people. Dunkin Donuts alone employs seven times as many people as the whole coal mining industry. There just aren’t that many coal miners anymore. And everyone currently involved with it joined up knowing full well the days of coal were numbered.

It has that low death rate precisely because it is heavily regulated.

The typical nuclear booster argument works on the following circular logic:

“Nuclear is perfectly safe.”

“But that’s not the problem with nuclear. The problem with nuclear is its too expensive.”

“Nuclear is expensive because it’s overly regulated!”

“But nuclear is only safe because of those heavy regulations!”

“We would have everything powered by nuclear by now if it weren’t for Greenpeace.”

Obama proved himself a centrist, but he ran as a progressive. That’s the crucial difference.

Honestly, I at this point wonder if progressives would be better off running as Republicans. Trump has largely, at least on messaging, distanced himself from a lot of traditional Republican economics. His base doesn’t really care much about traditional Republican policies like tax cuts or even deregulation. It’s mostly just driven by grievance and raw rage against vague elites. Mostly that is directed against cultural elites, but that same movement could be directed against wealth inequality. And the Republican Party has proven itself much more receptive to new ideas than the Democratic Party has. The Republican Party can be taken over by charismatic figures, while wealthy donors and special interest groups largely control the DNC. This isn’t likely to change any time soon. The existing Democratic leadership has more to gain by losing as a centrist than seeing a progressive win and force through change in the DNC.

I say progressives should try running as Republicans. Call yourself a “radical Republican,” hearkening back the historical radical Republicans in the post-Civil War era. Say you were going to stick it to the wealthy, give the little guy a shot, and not do any DEI. Hell, repeatedly hammer the nepotism and social advantages the wealthy have as “wealth DEI.” Rail endlessly against big business and elites. Vow to not appoint anyone who went to an Ivy League school to any position in your administration. Promise not to even talk to a single Wall Street Banker.

Exactly. And in a first-past-the-post system like the US, parties are constantly running the calculus of which interest groups to bring in or kick out of the big-tent coalition. You can call for raising taxes on the rich; that will help you with progressives, but it will cost you with the wealthy. You can be for LGBT rights; that will help you with LGBT folks and progressives, but that will cost you with conservatives. Parties constantly balance these issues to try and maximize their chances of winning elections.

The Democrats made this calculation on Gaza. It wasn’t some spontaneous act. They actively ran the numbers; they did the market research. They estimated that being 100% pro-Israel would gain them more moderate votes than it lost them in progressive and Muslim votes. They thought they would lose some Muslim voters, but they figured rebuking Israel would cost them too many middle class white voters.

Well, the Democrats fucked up. The middle class white voters they signed the Gazans death warrant for never showed up. And enough Muslims and progressives stayed home that they lost the election.

If the blame can lay anywhere except the DNC themselves, then the blame lies with middle class white moderates. No serious person should expect a group of people to show up to vote for a coalition if that coalition deliberately kicks them out of the coalition. But the Democratic Party bent over backwards to appeal to suburban white voters. Yet they still voted for Trump.

The Democrats deliberately and intentionally chose to throw Gaza supporters out of Kamala’s coalition. They did this hoping that it would net them more votes than they lost. Ultimately it failed, and yet, still, there are people now blaming those who were kicked out of the party, instead of the people who run the party.

You could throw in some Sam Bankman-Fried’s ‘philosophy’ which was just freshman-level ethics. The tech bro version of deep revealed moral truth is just they would have seen if they hadn’t all dropped out of college before taking their gen-ed classes.

In regards to Musk, I would settle for having his citizenship revoked as punishment for his earlier illegal immigration.

I’m honestly not too worried about this. Trump can already effectively run for a third or any number of terms. The Republican party is now a full-on cult of personality around Trump. To stay in power, all Trump has to do is have one of his fail sons run as his successor. During the campaign, have the actual candidate largely in the background, and make it clear to all voters that his son will be running as a formality only; Trump will remain the real power behind the throne. And, once elected, Trump can continue to maintain power through the power he personally has on the party. If his son ever goes against his wishes, Trump can get on TV and immediately turn the base against the nominal president. His son may formally be president, but he’s not getting anything past MAGA congressmembers without the blessing of Trump himself.

Then I guess Obama gets two more terms, because Republicans obstructed him.

Seriously. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had pro-confederate newspapers shut down. That is what a real response to a threat to democracy looks like.

Yes. I have! Though I have heard the idea before.

Sorry, everyone who knows how to make khlav kalash has been deported.

The leader has issues a new memorandum. You will only be allowed to drink flat, room-temperature, caffeine free Diet Mt. Dew.

Seriously. There are far better inflation hedges. There’s inflation-indexed treasury bonds, land, bonds, stocks, gold, etc.

I propose the opposite. Specifically, I propose we use the Burns omni-net. It sweeps the sea clean!