This is a very helpful post because it presents fact-based, important reasons why decades-old anti-nuclear myths and narratives should be encased in concrete and buried deep underground. Why? Because anyone who's seriously concerned about tackling global warming AND cares about economic and social justice would (should) take a hard look at current evidence (facts, data, etc), which supports nuclear energy as one of the best tools in our toolbox.
With all due respect to the power of 'story,' I would point out that myths and legends are among the oldest narrative forms. Convincing? Yes: to children, especially. As vehicles for learning, moral guidance, etc etc? Sure. But I suggest that stories are about as useful in dealing with the real world and its energy needs as putting garlic around your neck to ward off vampires.
I'd partly blame ... the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many people were terrified of nuclear annihilation in that specific calendar week. Trauma like that shapes you, consciously and unconsciously.
Greenpeace was founded about 8 years later. Anti-nuke, and as per the name, anti-war.
Statistics -- such as you've compiled -- are great, but stories (narratives) consistently beat mere statistics. (According to Mehdi Hasan and George Lakoff's books.)
And I'm excited that nuclear advocates have begun to explain its merits with increasingly compelling stories.
As a former scholar & prof (literary narratives & genres, rhetoric, critical analysis/reasoning) I do hear what you're saying and don't entirely disagree, but 'stories' aren't always fit for purpose--and much depends on purpose for writing/presenting (who needs to be persuaded, etc). Stories and myths are indeed powerful, as are facts. While statistics don't have the stature of facts OR stories, they are useful for supporting arguments and counter-arguments, which is why I welcome David Thiele's effort here.
But I like to think you and I are on the same page, and I'm old enough to (vaguely) remember the Cuban missile crisis!
"Vogtle’s Unit 3 and Unit 4 are the first new American reactors built from scratch in decades. Each can power 500,000 homes and businesses without releasing any carbon. But even as government officials and some utilities are again looking to nuclear power to alleviate climate change, the cost of Vogtle could discourage utilities from pursuing nuclear power.
"Southern Co., the Atlanta-based parent of Georgia Power, said in a stock market filing Friday that it would record a $228 million gain on the deal, saying it will now be able to recover from ratepayers certain construction costs that it had been subtracting from income. That means the total loss to shareholders on the project will be about $3 billion, which the company has written off since 2018....
"Calculations show Vogtle’s electricity will never be cheaper than other sources Georgia Power could have chosen, even after the federal government reduced borrowing costs by guaranteeing repayment of $12 billion in loans. Yet the company and regulators say Vogtle was the right choice. "
Building the first new plant in decades was going to be expensive. Unit 4 was 30% below the cost of Unit 3. If we build another 20 reactors over the next couple of years that price will keep dropping.
This is a very helpful post because it presents fact-based, important reasons why decades-old anti-nuclear myths and narratives should be encased in concrete and buried deep underground. Why? Because anyone who's seriously concerned about tackling global warming AND cares about economic and social justice would (should) take a hard look at current evidence (facts, data, etc), which supports nuclear energy as one of the best tools in our toolbox.
With all due respect to the power of 'story,' I would point out that myths and legends are among the oldest narrative forms. Convincing? Yes: to children, especially. As vehicles for learning, moral guidance, etc etc? Sure. But I suggest that stories are about as useful in dealing with the real world and its energy needs as putting garlic around your neck to ward off vampires.
I'd partly blame ... the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many people were terrified of nuclear annihilation in that specific calendar week. Trauma like that shapes you, consciously and unconsciously.
Greenpeace was founded about 8 years later. Anti-nuke, and as per the name, anti-war.
Statistics -- such as you've compiled -- are great, but stories (narratives) consistently beat mere statistics. (According to Mehdi Hasan and George Lakoff's books.)
And I'm excited that nuclear advocates have begun to explain its merits with increasingly compelling stories.
As a former scholar & prof (literary narratives & genres, rhetoric, critical analysis/reasoning) I do hear what you're saying and don't entirely disagree, but 'stories' aren't always fit for purpose--and much depends on purpose for writing/presenting (who needs to be persuaded, etc). Stories and myths are indeed powerful, as are facts. While statistics don't have the stature of facts OR stories, they are useful for supporting arguments and counter-arguments, which is why I welcome David Thiele's effort here.
But I like to think you and I are on the same page, and I'm old enough to (vaguely) remember the Cuban missile crisis!
And yet, according to https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtle-rates-costs-c333da2957cce7a937008347f3487841
"Vogtle’s Unit 3 and Unit 4 are the first new American reactors built from scratch in decades. Each can power 500,000 homes and businesses without releasing any carbon. But even as government officials and some utilities are again looking to nuclear power to alleviate climate change, the cost of Vogtle could discourage utilities from pursuing nuclear power.
"Southern Co., the Atlanta-based parent of Georgia Power, said in a stock market filing Friday that it would record a $228 million gain on the deal, saying it will now be able to recover from ratepayers certain construction costs that it had been subtracting from income. That means the total loss to shareholders on the project will be about $3 billion, which the company has written off since 2018....
"Calculations show Vogtle’s electricity will never be cheaper than other sources Georgia Power could have chosen, even after the federal government reduced borrowing costs by guaranteeing repayment of $12 billion in loans. Yet the company and regulators say Vogtle was the right choice. "
Building the first new plant in decades was going to be expensive. Unit 4 was 30% below the cost of Unit 3. If we build another 20 reactors over the next couple of years that price will keep dropping.