What does “mastering it” really mean? Usually a big part is learning from mistakes. Which I do not think is something you want to do with nuclear power.

Except for funding, obviously.

And as I said, the main point is we need clean, renewable energy as soon as possible, which only solar and wind (and to some extent hydro) can provide.

If you read my comment, I specifically add a caveat for hydro.

In terms of solar and wind, of course we cannot just build unlimited amounts, but we can ramp up capacity a lot more easily and quickly than with nuclear, because it’s a lot simpler and faster to build (especially solar). Imagine if we increase construction capacity by 10x tomorrow; we would still need to wait for 15 to 25 years to see any impact with nuclear, while solar and wind would go online next year.

Of course, ramping up production brings an increased risk of manufacturing faults and construction errors in all cases. But I would argue that any nuclear accident is a lot more undesirable than some solar or wind power going offline.

In terms of nuclear fuel, these alternative technologies may exist. But again, the time to market, and the fact that we are introducing a new technology into our vastly expanding production capacity just brings even more risk and uncertainty, which is completely unnecessary when extremely save and reliable, well tested alternatives exist (solar and wind).

So what I am arguing is that we focus our limited resources and money (the latter being the key factor in our economy, unfortunately) on the things that have the largest impact in the shortest amount of time, and that is solar and wind (and to an extent hydro).

And again, all that analysis is graciously disregarding the very real risks of nuclear power (instability, war, proliferation).

That is a very interesting report, thanks!

Reading through the summary and overview, they address exactly the problem that I’ve highlighted: how can we build more reactors faster and more economically, without compromising safety? Of course that means that this issue remains unresolved for now, underscoring my point.

They avoid discussing the other risks I’ve mentioned (stability, war, proliferation) and admit as much, which is fair enough, but I cannot find any comment regarding the availability of fissile material in the supply chain, which I would think is a rather crucial point.

What I take away from this report is that Nuclear power has a place in solving the climate crisis, if we:

• Implement a host of regulatory changes and new project management practices, and focus R&D to resolve the remaining problems
• Focus mainly on economic viability (which is a fair point, unfortunately), where Nuclear provides clear benefits if their assumptions hold (including thst point 1 is fully implemented)
• Disregard that fissile material is non-renwable and availability might be limited
• Disregard the immense risks of political instability and proliferation.

All in all, they conclude that sweeping changes are needed (which is always a risk) and disregard crucial present and known risks. Both these points are simply non-issues with solar, wind, and hydro-power.

I will have to strongly disagree here. The timelines are actually the main reason why I would disqualify Nuclear power as a solution to energy, even as a temporary one.

The time from inception to going online for a new Nuclear reactor is in the range of 15-25 years. Of course we could attempt to shorten that, but that would probably mean compromising on safety. So indeed, if we want to stop using fossil fuels asap, building solar, wind, and hydro, which come online in a matter of months (maybe years for hydro), is much faster.

Aggravating this are two further issues: Current Nuclear energy production is non-renewable, and supply problems are already known to occur at current energy production levels. Second, the global construction capacity is limited, probably to around current levels. Even if we do not push for faster construction times, the number of companies and indeed people who have the necessary expertise are already at full capacity, and again, expanding that would probably imply safety problems.

That is to say, currently running Nuclear power plants are save and clean, so by all means keep doing it until renewables take over. But expanding Nuclear power to solve the energy problem is a non-starter for me, due to the timeline and it being non-renewable. And that is before we start talking about the very real dangers of Nuclear power, which are not operational of course, but due to proliferation, war, and governmental or general societal instability (due to say, climate change).

Yes, this might prompt the harshest reaction in decades: a letter with a stern condemnation. But I wouldn’t count on it.

I totally agree that current nuclear power generation should be left running until we have enough green energy to pick up the slack, because it does provide clean and safe energy. However, I totally disagree on the scalability, for two main reasons:

1. Current nuclear power generation is non-renewable. It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen. And it goes without saying that waiting to scale up some novel unproven or inexistent sustainable way of nuclear power production is out of the question, for time and safety reasons. Which brings me to point 2.

2. We need clean, sustainable energy right now if we want to have any chance of fighting climate change. From start of planning of a new nuclear power plant to first power generation can take 15 or 20 years easily. Currently, about 10% of all electricity worldwide is produced by about 400 nuclear reactors, while around 15 new ones are under construction. So, to make any sort of reasonable impact, we would have to build to the tune of 2000 new reactors, pronto. To do that within 30 years, we’d have to increase our construction capacity 5 to 10 fold. Even if that were possible, which I strongly doubt, I would wager the safety and cost impacts would be totally unjustifiable. And we don’t even have 30 years anymore. That is to say nothing of regulatory checks and maintenance that would also have to be increased 5 fold.

So imho nuclear power as a solution to climate change is a non-starter, simply due to logistical and scaling reasons. And that is before we even talk about the very real dangers of nuclear power generation, which are of course not operational, but due to things like proliferation, terrorist attacks, war, and other unforseen disruptions through e.g. climate change, societal or governmental shifts, etc.

Of course you can “spend” debt, but only if the debtor is very reputable. Consider the old example: I ask you to fix my car. I don’t have any money on me to repay you, so I give you an I.O.U… You go get a haircut, but don’t have any money on you either. The hairdresser knows I’m a standup guy so he takes my I.O.U. as payment instead. Later he comes to me to collect, I repay him and we rip up the I.O.U… See how it can be spent like money (we could of course add any number of people in between who trust me where my I.O.U. changes hands)?

Part of the agreement with the bank is that they guarantee (to a reasonable degree, as the FDIC puts it) to be available for collection in cash at any time. That of course makes them an extremely reliable debtor, and therefore their I.O.U.s (a.k.a. the money in your account) are virtually globally accepted as payment (not least because of the government heavily regulating the matter). See the parallels?

Also, I still would like to know what the legal nature of a bank account is if not debt. I think I’ve ruled out Bailment, Trust, and Agency. What else is it?

Going on a tangent here, I think what cannot be understated is the power dynamic intrinsic in debt agreements. Usually, the creditor gains a considerable amount of power over the debtor, especially if the latter fails to repay his debt (the threat is foreclosure, imprisonment, etc.). It may be difficult to see a bank account as a debtor/creditor relation, precisely because this power gradient is inverted. The bank is the debtor, but somehow they retain all the power in the relationship.

Consider what happens if they cannot pay up (during a bank run for example): it is not the bank and the bankers that are under physical threat, but its creditors (the account holders), because obviously without money they cannot survive.

If I owe you money, and somebody else owes me money, yea of course you would sue me, not that other person. But I could write over some of the debt I’m owed to you to clear my debt to you.

And isn’t this exactly how debt enforcement works? You win in court and the court tells the bank (or forces me to tell the bank) to take x amount out of my account and put it into your account. The debt I was owed gets transferred to you, which clears my debt to you.

The transaction is “I give the bank money, and they have to give it back later”. How can we arrange that legally without transferring ownership? I only know these ways:

Bailment: That would mean the bank keeps the physical bills (or other valuables) in a proverbial or literal safe with my name on it, to return the exact same items later. Of course banks offer that service, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

Trust: The bank takes my money and invests it on my behalf. It does not go on the bank’s books, and they cannot use my money for their own purposes (e.g. as security for loans, to fulfil capital requirements, invest it themselves and keep the proceeds, etc.). This is obviously not the case.

Agency: The bank takes my money and executes transactions on my behalf, according to my orders. Again, obviously not the case.

Am I missing something? Is there some special law for bank accounts? I’m genuinely interested.

I wonder what other arrangement it could even possibly constitute.

Bailment? That would mean physically locking the bills that you deposit in a safe that you rent, which is possible I guess, but not what we’re talking about here.

Trust? This would mean the deposit does not go on the bank’s books, and they cannot use it for their own purposes. This is clearly not the case, at the very least since investment banks and savings banks were merged.

Agency? That would mean the bank uses your money to enact transactions on your behalf, again, clearly not the case.

That leaves the only other form of “I give you money and you give it back later”, namely debt.

It’s certainly how banks work where I live, and presuming we are talking about the US here, I did a quick skim through the first few results on google and there mostly seems to be agreement that it is a debtor/creditor relationship.

How would you describe the legal arrangements of a bank account then?

Well I’m interested now. It certainly is the case where I live, and presuming we are talking about the US here, I did a quick skim through the first few results on google and they seem to agree that it’s a debtor/creditor relationship.

How else would you describe the legal arrangements of a bank account then?

Not defending the Musk here, but literally it’s not your money anymore as soon as you put it in a bank account.

The money you put in your account belongs to the bank, and the account functions as an I.O.U… A very privileged one compared to other debts, and in most cases redeemable without notice, but you’re in fact just another creditor.

More than 90% of the money we use does not come from the central banks, i.e. does not exist as cash and is not backed by the government directly. Instead it is book money. Here is how this works:

When a bank lends you $1000 at 10% interest for a year, they don’t physically have that money. Instead, they write into your account: We owe you $1000. They also write into their account: Skaterboy42069 owes us $1100.

See how the $1000 you have in your account just appeared out of nowhere? They are of course balanced by the bank’s $1000, but there is an extra $100 (the interest) that was created permanently. It’s up to you to come up with a way of making those extra $100 in one year. Now apply that to the entire monetary system and the whole economy, and you see how the only way is up.

As an aside: This is also precisely the reason why we need ~2% GDP growth annually, and any standstill or even shrinking is an absolute disaster. Debts don’t get repaid and are defaulted on, and money literally evaporates. Ask yourself this: imagine GDP drops 10% over night and what that would do to the economy. Why would that be such a disaster if it would simply send us back to about 2018 GDP-wise (when we all lived in caves)?