This is wonderful and I’m looking forward to reading the whole thing. Even just at the beginning I appreciate the mention of nuclear versus solar as a question of democracy versus authoritarianism. I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not. This has long term implications for the society that relies on one versus the other. Entire regions would be tied to supply chains that might require their participation in certain political agreements. This is not automatically a bad thing, but when considering broad strategies between nuclear versus solar, I think it is important to consider. Technologies that allow more political freedom to break bonds as needs arise are more democratic than technologies which require the maintenance of powerful monolithic authorities.
> nuclear versus solar as a question of democracy versus authoritarianism
This is the first time I encounter this argument. To me it sounds more like confirmation bias: you are antinuclear; this is a very emotional thing, and any argument against nuclear energy sounds very good.
> one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it
Yes, but so do most industrial processes nowadays. The computer I'm writing this on would be impossible without a powerful state to protect its manufacturer, and the manufacturers of all the components that went into making it. Yet, I doubt you think computers are inherently linked to authoritarian regimes, and democracies should resort to pen and paper.
The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”. Which I think it argues very successfully.
So either you’re arguing that “no, artifacts do not have politics” which I don’t think you’ve done well. Or you would like to show that nuclear does not have the result of making a society more authoritarian. Which you’ve not done.
Or you could concede that “yes, this tech makes things more authoritarian” but go on to argue that it’s not by much and it’s worth it if a good trade off. This would be your best option but you’ve picked a technology with a mocking counter example, thus undermining that possible argument.
If you feel you made a strong argument for something I didn’t list, then I’m curious to hear what exactly you’re trying to argue and why you believe your comment supports that argument.
> The point isn’t “nuclear makes states more authoritarian” the point is “adopting tech X will make it societies more Y”.
I think you accidentally wrote the opposite of what you thought. If you substitute X with "nuclear power plants" and Y with "authoritarian", then your second statement is synonymous with your first statement.
Regardless, your initial point was neither; that's the thing I was responding to. Specifically:
> I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not.
My argument was that all advanced technologies require a powerful state to protect. Like computers. We already have such a state, and it is not authoritarian. Democracy is not incompatible with having a powerful state. The fact that the US won WW2 is a testament to that.
But let's address your new contention: the existence of nuclear power plants in a country makes it more likely that that country would slide into authoritarianism. That works with a toy model of a state being completely without regulations. We don't live in such a toy model. The US, and the Western countries, have lots of regulatory bodies, and they work well. In the case of the nuclear power plants, that regulatory body is the NRC in the US. The idea that people can steal plutonium from nuclear waste in the US is ludicrous. The idea that you can't safeguard the nuclear waste, or the nuclear power plants themselves is a complete rejection of reality. Both in the US and in the UK, France and so many other countries.
Let's talk than Russia. Russia has become a full fledged totalitarian regime. Russia also has numerous nuclear power plants. Were the power plants the cause, or one of the causes, of Russia becoming undemocratic? Of course, identifying cause-and-effect relationships is notoriously difficult, even on a philosophical level. But one can't escape but notice that while most industries in Russia are owned by oligarchs, the civilian nuclear industry (Rosatom) is not.
So, I find that the evidence that nuclear power plants lead to a weakening of democracy is flimsy at best.
The US state has in place the laws, rules, regulations, law enforcement, etc, to safeguard numerous facilities. That whole apparatus needs to exist. One can't just walk in a factory that assembles F-35 jets, or Himars missiles, or even one that manufactures Tylenol. There were some Tylenol murders in 1982, and the FDA added measures to prevent that from happening again in the future [1].
So, while I agree that a solar farm needs virtually no safeguarding compared to a nuclear power plant, I don't think it would have any discernible effect in the overall state surveillance apparatus.
We live in a society that's quite obsessed with the checks and balances around state surveillance, and it's a healthy obsession. If anything, having nuclear power plants increases slightly the stakes in that debate, and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less. But I'm not willing to go as far as claiming that the effect in that direction is going to be any more measurable than the effect in the opposite direction.
> So, while I agree that a solar farm needs virtually no safeguarding compared to a nuclear power plant, I don't think it would have any discernible effect in the overall state surveillance apparatus.
This is the argument I suggested you make in my first reply. I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s the best argument for your position: that the effect might exist, but is negligible.
To me the consolidation of power isn’t in surveillance it’s in force of mandate. If the government says “we must do this or the lights go off” that’s one consolidation of power. If they say “we must do this or else something will kill you and render the area uninhabitable for generations to come” that’s a much stronger force. When I read this paper that’s the relative difference that I’m feeling when they talk about authoritarian leanings.
I assume all organizations want more power (both government and corporate). To me, something that has an authoritarian-izing effect is one that provides an excuse for a consolidation of power. Whether it results in an authoritarian state is unknowable but the question “which of these fears would give the government more power” is (at least in the abstract and general sense) clear enough to be accurately debated. The authoritarian/democratic angle would be to clarify whether the mandate comes from the people (democratic), or from some immutable source, or both.
> and the outcome could be more democracy rather than less.
I could see how you could want that to be true. But I’m just guessing on how it could actually be true. How could we test this hypothetical?
> I’ve said in comments here on HN before that one of the issues with nuclear is that it requires a powerful state to protect it, whereas solar does not. This has long term implications for the society that relies on one versus the other.
I agree that this seems to be an under-discussed aspect of energy policy. Which is odd, because it seems widely agreed that oil and politics are very, very interlinked.
Due to Stalingrad blocking the way to the Caucasus (and eventually Iraq?), Hitler discovered the iron law of 20th century warfare: "No Oil, No Blitz" (无油无闪?)
During the heyday of the British Empire, the Royal Navy ruled the waves with renewable energy, and needed to put into port mostly for things like food and fresh water.
Since Suez, the US Navy has waived the rules (exception to COLREGS: "if it's gray, stay away") but a majority of its fleet would degenerate to a "fleet in being" without oil.
Every centralised resource requires a powerful entity to protect it. Something like a massive damn for hydro power is also a great target for a state's enemies and requires its protection. And if we consider not the inherent potential danger but also the danger of taking away a major power source, any centralised power generation - even massive wind and solar farms - needs such protection.
And that isn't even looking at the political side of this - this asserts that a powerful state is necessarily authoritarian, which is complete nonsense. Some of the most powerful countries right now aren't authoritarian (not saying they're perfect democracies, but some are pretty ok compared to the worst we have) and the "most democratic" countries have right now are all powerful enough to keep their nuclear power safe (or could if they had it).
It's also not a given that a powerful state is a bad thing. Weak democratic states make it possible for authoritarian regimes to take control. And even without that, weak states are usually ridden with crime and poverty, whereas strong states have the ability to level inequalities and prevent crime) - all without the need to be authoritarian.
Oh, and let's not forget that the only reason we have cheap solar power in the first place is because they're produced by modern slaves in fully authoritarian countries with zero regard for human safety or the environment.
