Renewable energy trounces nuclear on generation costs
By Marion Rae, December 9 2024 – https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/8841115/renewable-energy-trounces-nuclear-on-generation-costs/
Power planners have found nuclear energy does not stack up for Australia even after considering new parameters, with large-scale solar and big batteries still the lowest-cost option.
In an official update released on Monday, as the federal opposition prepares to release its costings, scientists warn taxpayers will need deep pockets and a lead time of at least 15 years to develop nuclear energy generation.
For the seventh straight year, renewables were the lowest-cost of any new-build electricity-generating technology.
After a global energy crisis and equipment supply crunch several years ago, large-scale solar and lithium battery storage have weathered the inflationary period the best of all technologies.
The cost of batteries recorded the largest annual reduction, with capital costs down by one-fifth. Rooftop solar costs are also coming down.
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney said four million households with rooftop solar, energy producers and retailers have already voted with their feet and wallets.
“Nuclear is not right for Australia, which has some of the best renewable energy resources on the planet,” he said.
The GenCost 2024-25 Report released for consultation comes as the coalition pushes for an end to Australia’s nuclear ban and promises to have reactors online in as soon as 10 years if elected in 2025.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, eyeing sites in seven regional centres, has pledged to release the coalition’s nuclear costings “this week”.
But nuclear energy generation would be 1.5 to two times more expensive than large-scale solar, according to the analysis by the national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.
A one-gigawatt nuclear plant has a price tag of roughly $9 billion, but the bill would double to $18 billion as the first of its kind.
Operators would also need to establish new connection points to safely supply the national electricity grid, experts warn.
Advocates have demanded greater recognition of the potential cost advantages of nuclear’s long operating life compared to solar panels and wind turbines, but CSIRO chief energy economist and GenCost lead author Paul Graham said he found none.
“Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies including renewables, even when accounting for the need to build them twice,” Mr Graham said.
Nuclear’s capacity factor – referring to how much of a year a reactor could operate at full tilt – remains unaltered at 53-89 per cent based on verifiable data and consideration of Australia’s unique electricity generation needs.
Nor would the often-touted United Arab Emirates example of a relatively quick 12-year nuclear construction time-frame be achievable here, the report found, because Australians require consultation.
“The facts are laid out very clearly in the GenCost report, and our government respects the work of CSIRO scientists and researchers and listens to that advice,” Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic said.
“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy not only threatens to blow out the budget, it also threatens jobs and household power bills,” he said.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said renewables remain the cheapest new-build electricity generation in Australia to 2050, as standalone assets and when also accounting for the required storage, transmission and firming.
The report is open for industry, community and political feedback until February 11.
Counteracting the nuclear-military-corporate-media – week to 9 December
Some bits of good news:China completes its own version of a Great Green Wall. Christian institutions divest from fossil fuels. Incredible progress on AIDS for Africa and India .
TOP STORIES. Amnesty International investigation concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza .
Gender and radiation: New report shows girls most at-risk group.
Biden’s Nuclear Going Out of Business Sale.
Climate . Just listen to Radio Ecoshock – it is way ahead of everyone else in climate information. Just Shut Up about Climate. Countdown to an ice-free Arctic:New research warns of accelerated timelines. Younger people at greater risk of heat-related deaths this century – study.
Plastic pollution. ‘Big Oil must be dancing for joy‘: Anger builds at failure to deliver Global Plastics Treaty. ‘The process is broken’: Major oil producing countries kill UN plastics treaty over cap on production.
Noel’s notes. Misplaced jubilation as UK’s old brittle nuclear reactors allowed to crack on Surprise ! surprise! – the nuclear lobby has co-opted an ex-politician with a dubious history – Tony Blair.
Plastic pollution. International talks on curbing plastic pollution fail to reach agreement.
**********************************
AUSTRALIA.
The question of nuclear in Australia’s electricity sector
. Nuclear energy questioned again as new CSIRO report finds it will push up power prices. A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costings.
Peter Dutton cops backlash over push to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia. The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings
Nuclear energy debate draws stark gender split in Australia ahead of next year’s election.
Nuclear energy inquiry draws emotional response in Port Augusta.
Senior Netanyahu Adviser Served in Victorian Court facing Genocide Charges. ‘Nothing to see here’ says Australia as third Thales corruption case starts globally. More Australian nuclear news headlines at https://antinuclear.net/2024/12/03/australian-nuclear-news-2-9th-december/
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
| ATROCITIES. Gaza’s Civil Defense Says Nearly 100 Killed by Israeli Attacks Over 24 Hours |
| ECONOMICS. Tony Blair is wrong to love nuclear energy -ALSO AT …. Why NuScale Power Stock Slumped Today. Key partner quits EDF’s Nuward small nuclear reactor project- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/12/06/1-b1-tony-blair-is-wrong-to-love-nuclear-energy/ UK Seeks More Investors as Sizewell Funding Talks Drag On. Starmer to court United Arab Emirates for British nuclear power investment. |
| EDUCATION. Midlands Regional Hub for Nuclear Skills officially launched. |
| ENERGY.The LA Times Makes the Case for Shutting the Diablo Canyon Nukes.Meta misguided in calling for massive nuclear energy scale-up.Baseload power generators not needed to guarantee supply, say science and engineering academies.Cost of switching off UK wind farms soars to ‘absurd’ £1bn. |
| ENVIRONMENT. Radioactive sea spray is dosing communities. |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. What happened to integrity and honor in the age of Technocracy? |
| HEALTH. Cancer mortality in the USA and atmospheric nuclear weapons test fallout ratio – Identifying the principal origin of the global cancer epidemic.Relationship Between Urinary Uranium and Cardiac Geometry and Left Ventricular Function: The Strong Heart Study. |
| INDIGENOUS ISSUES. Nuclear industry selects site in northwestern Ontario for waste disposal amidst regional opposition. |
| LEGAL. Campaigners lose bid to challenge Sizewell C licence decision in High Court. |
| POLITICS. The First Seven Billionaires Trump Has Tapped for Top Jobs. Gabbard has more intelligence than entire Intelligence Service she’s slated to head. Trump’s Pro-Israel Dream Team: Patel Nomination Caps Hawkish Cabinet. Britain’s Energy Secretary Follows Tech Giants In Pursuit Of New Nuclear Power Stations |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.Assad Is Out, Woke Al-Qaeda Is In. Zelensky Says He’s Willing To Cede Territory in Exchange for NATO Protection. Biden to Zelensky: ‘Our $210 billion not enough…send 18 year olds to die in our Russian proxy war. Iran’s uranium enrichment ‘worrisome’ – nuclear watchdog. |
| SAFETY. EDF set to extend life of UK nuclear plants as Government replacement plans falter. EDF Brings Sizewell Back Online, Balancing UK’s Nuclear Grid. Delays to nuclear plants giving Sizewell B a new lease of life – ALSO AThttps://nuclear-news.net/?s=Delays+to+nuclear+plants UK underestimates threat of cyber-attacks from hostile states and gangs, says security chief.Drugs found in control room at Dungeness Nuclear Power Station. NRC Finds Apparent SecurityViolations at Pilgrim. |
| SPINBUSTER. Tony Blair think tank says UK needs to build new nuclear ‘at pace’ -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/12/06/1-a-tony-blair-think-tank-says-uk-needs-to-build-new-nuclear-at-pace/ . TONY BLAIR: STILL A NUCLEAR NUTTER! |
| TECHNOLOGY. Hinkley update: mixed reaction as first reactor drops into place. The Moltex Reactor and used CANDU Fuel. |
| URANIUM. Niger takes control of French nuclear firm’s uranium mining operations. Green Group Sounds Alarm Over Meta’s Nuclear Power Plans |
| WASTES.Backfilling of Gorleben salt mine (former German nuclear waste dump) starts.Putin’s huge, rusting nuclear battlecruisers symbolise Russian naval decline.Lincolnshire county councillors demand answers on Nuclear Waste Services’ (NWS) proposed Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) at Theddlethorpe. Canada’s nuclear waste problem is not solved . Licensing of Finnish repository further delayed.Decommissioning: Explosives speed Sizewell A turbine hall decommissioning. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. These Billionaires Subsidize the Israeli Military Through a US Nonprofit. We used to laugh at North Korean nuclear submarine boasts- Not any more. The growing arsenals. |
WAR and CONFLICT. Netanyahu Takes Credit for Assad’s Overthrow, Israel Seizes Golan Heights ‘Buffer Zone’
The question of nuclear in Australia’s electricity sector
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2024/December/Nuclear-explainer 9 Dec 24
In Australia’s transition to net zero emissions, the electricity sector has a major role to play. But does nuclear power have a place in our future grid?
Key points
While nuclear technologies have a long operational life, this factor provides no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies.
Nuclear power does not currently provide the most cost competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia.
Long development lead times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
This explainer was updated on 09 December 2024 to reflect costings included in the draft GenCost 2024-25 Report.
As Australia works towards emissions reduction targets in the transition to net zero, we know the electricity sector has a major role to play. We also know it makes sense to assess a full range of technologies: some new and emerging, some established and proven.
In this context some proponents want nuclear to be considered as an option for decarbonising the electricity sector.
Despite nuclear power being a component of electricity generation for 16 per cent of the world’s countries, it does not currently represent a timely or efficient solution for meeting Australia’s net zero target.
Here’s why:
- Nuclear is not economically competitive with solar PV and wind and the total development time in Australia for large or small-scale nuclear is at least 15 years.
- Small modular reactors (SMRs) are potentially faster to build but are commercially immature at present.
- The total development lead time needed for nuclear means it cannot play a major role in electricity sector emission abatement, which is more urgent than abatement in other sectors.
Understanding GenCost calculations
GenCost is a leading economic report by CSIRO in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to estimate the cost of building future electricity generation and storage, as well as hydrogen production in Australia.
It is a policy and technology neutral report and the annual process involves close collaboration with electricity industry experts. There are opportunities for stakeholders to provide pre-publication feedback, ensuring the accuracy of available evidence.
Paul Graham, our Chief Energy Economist and lead author of the report, said GenCost is an open and public process.
“The report’s data is not just for AEMO planning and forecasting; it’s also used by government policymakers and electricity strategists who require a clear, simple metric to inform their decisions,” Paul said.
“To facilitate a straightforward comparison across different technologies, the GenCost report conducts a levelised cost of electricity analysis. This method calculates a dollar cost per megawatt hour (MWh) over the economic life of the asset, incorporating initial capital expenses and any ongoing fuel, operation, and maintenance costs.”
The draft GenCost 2024-25 Report released on 09 December 2024 found renewables continue to have the lowest cost range of any new build electricity generation technologies.
[Excellent table here -on original]
One of the factors that impacts the high and low cost range is the capacity factor. The capacity factor is the percentage of time on average that the technology generates to its full capacity throughout the year. Costs are lowest if technologies. such as nuclear, can operate at full capacity for as long as possible so they have more generation revenue over which to recover their capital costs.
Nuclear technology is capable of high capacity factor operation but globally its capacity factor ranges from below 60% to above 90% with an average of 80%. Australia operates a similar steam turbine based technology in coal generation for which the average capacity factor over the last decade was 59% with a maximum of 89%.
The shape of the electricity load and competition from other sources is very different between countries and so our preference is to always use Australian data where it is available. Consequently, we apply the historical coal capacity factors when considering the potential future capacity factors of Australian nuclear generation.
Capital cost assumptions
While nuclear generation is well established globally, it has never been deployed in Australia.
Applying overseas costs to large-scale nuclear projects in Australia is not straightforward due to significant variations in labour costs, workforce expertise, governance and standards. As a result, the source country for large-scale nuclear data must be carefully selected.
GenCost estimates of the cost large-scale nuclear are based on South Korea’s successful continuous nuclear building program and adjusted for differences in Australian and South Korean deployment costs by investigating the ratio of new coal generation costs in each country.
The large-scale nuclear costs it reported could only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building program, following the construction of an initial higher-cost unit or units. Initial units of all first-of-a-kind technologies in Australia are expected to be impacted by higher costs. A first-of-a-kind cost premium of up to 100 per cent cannot be ruled out. These assumptions remain for the draft GenCost 2024-25 Report.
Life of the investment
GenCost recognises the difference between the period over which the capital cost is recovered (the economic life) and operational life of an asset.
GenCost assumes a 30-year economic life for large-scale nuclear plants, even though they can operate for a longer period. It is standard practice in private financing that the capital recovery period for an asset is less than its full operational life, similar to a car or house loan. For power stations, warranties expire and refurbishment costs may begin to fall around the 30-year mark. As a result, we use a 30-year lifespan in our cost calculations.
After the final GenCost 23-24 Report was released in May 2024, nuclear proponents clarified they will seek to achieve longer capital recovery periods, closer to the operational life, by using public financing to realise potential cost advantages.
The draft GenCost 2024-25 Report has calculated those cost advantages for the first time (using a 60-year period), finding that there are no unique cost advantages arising from nuclear technology’s long operational life. Similar cost savings are achievable from shorter-lived technologies, even accounting for the fact that shorter lived technologies need to be built twice. This is because shorter-lived technologies such as solar PV and wind are typically available at a lower cost over time, making the second build less costly.
The lack of an economic advantage for long-lived nuclear is due to substantial nuclear refurbishment costs to achieve long operational life safely. Without new investment it cannot achieve long operational life. Also, because of the long lead time in nuclear deployment, cost reductions in the second half of their operational life are not available until around 45 years into the future, significantly reducing their value to consumers compared to other options.
Current figures for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
The Carbon Free Power Project was a nuclear SMR project in the United States established in 2015 and planned for full operation by 2030. It was the first project to receive design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an essential step before construction can commence. In November 2023, the project was cancelled following a 56 per cent increase in reported costs.
Despite being cancelled, this project was the first and currently remains the only project to have provided cost estimates for a real commercial venture with detailed data. Until now, most sources were for theoretical projects only.
“The main area of uncertainty with nuclear SMR has been around capital costs,” Paul said.
“The Carbon Free Power Project provided more confidence about the capital costs of nuclear SMR and the data confirms it is currently a very high-cost technology.”
“We don’t disagree with the principle of SMRs. They attempt to speed up the building process of nuclear plants using standardised components in a modular system and may achieve cost reductions over time. However, the lack of commercial deployment has meant that these potential savings are not yet verified or realised,” Paul said.
Time is running out for the energy transition
Nuclear power has an empty development pipeline in Australia. Given the state and federal legal restrictions, this is not surprising.
But even if nuclear power was more economically feasible, its slow construction and its additional pre-construction steps, particularly around safety and security, limit its potential to play a serious role in reducing emissions within the required timeframe.
In the last five years, the global median construction time for nuclear has been 8.2 years. Furthermore, in the last ten years, no country with a similar level of democracy to Australia have been able to complete construction in less than 10 years. Overall, it will take at least 15 years before first nuclear generation could be achieved in Australia.
“The electricity sector is one of our largest sources of emissions and delaying the transition will make the cost of addressing climate change higher for all Australians,” Paul said
The electricity sector must rapidly lead the transition to net zero, so other sectors like transport, building and manufacturing can adopt electrification and cut their emissions.”
CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables
By energy reporter Daniel Mercer and National Regional Affairs Reporter Jane Norman, ABC News, 9 Dec 24
In short:
The CSIRO’s new GenCost report again says a nuclear power plant for Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy.
Australia’s leading science agency also said nuclear power plants enjoyed relatively little financial advantage from their long lives and would run at a capacity similar to coal.
What’s next?
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton prepares to release the much-anticipated costings of the Coalition’s nuclear power policy this week.
Building a nuclear power plant in Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy even accounting for the much longer life-span of reactors, according to a new report from Australia’s leading science agency.
In its latest economic analysis of the cost of building various energy projects, the CSIRO found nuclear plants enjoyed relatively little financial advantage from their long lives, which could be double a solar or wind farm.
It comes as the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton prepares to release the much-anticipated costings of the Coalition’s nuclear power policy this week. Mr Dutton has repeatedly said the policy would help bring down power bills, a claim challenged in this latest report.
The CSIRO regularly releases the GenCost report, which looks at the cost of Australia’s energy sources. It has consistently found renewable to be the cheapest option, despite a run of inclusions at the request of critics to make changes to the modelling — the latest being the life span of a nuclear plant.
And the agency said there was little evidence to suggest nuclear reactors in Australia would be able to benefit from running flat-out around the clock, noting they would face the same forces that are hollowing out the business case for coal.
The conclusions come after the CSIRO copped heavy criticism over a report in May that found Australia’s first nuclear power plant would cost up to $17 billion in today’s dollars and not be operational until 2040.
At the time, critics including opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, who is spearheading the Coalition’s case for nuclear power, said the CSIRO analysis was flawed.
………………….an update of its GenCost report — which it carries out annually alongside the Australian Energy Market Operator — the CSIRO has largely stood by its earlier findings.
Nuclear’s long life ‘no advantage’
………………….CSIRO chief economist Paul Graham said even if a nuclear project could get a loan with a 60-year term, higher interest payments would wipe out many of the supposed gains.
……………………… low costs would be short-lived because nuclear reactors faced substantial refurbishment costs running into billions of dollars after about 40 years of operation.
For these reasons, Mr Graham said there was no “unique” cost advantage offered by nuclear compared with renewable energy projects backed by transmission lines and so-called firming technologies such as batteries and gas plants.
…………………………………………………………………………… No plant likely until 2040
On the subject of lead times to build nuclear, Mr Graham was steadfast.
He said suggestions Australia would be able to build its first nuclear reactor in sooner than 15 years seemed to stretch plausibility.
Nuclear proponents have pointed as an example to the United Arab Emirates, which went from having no reactors to commissioning its first project in 12 years.
Mr Graham said the UAE was, in many ways, a best-case scenario for the nuclear industry but the country was hardly comparable to Australia.
The UAE was an absolute monarchy with an autocratic style of government but Mr Graham said Australia was a democracy where policies were subject to many checks and balances.
Accordingly, he said overturning Australia’s ban on nuclear power, “planning, permitting and financing” a reactor would be a daunting task that took a lot of time.
……………………… “After we evaluated these three topics, potential for longer life, how often nuclear generates throughout the year, when we applied those numbers, we are still finding that large-scale nuclear would be 1.5 to 2.5 times the cost of generating from firmed solar and wind,” Mr Graham said.
……………………………….In line with its earlier findings, the CSIRO concluded renewable energy and the technologies required to back it up would be the cheapest way of meeting Australia’s future energy needs.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the CSIRO had accommodated the Coalition’s concerns and still found that Labor’s renewables-led approach was the cheapest way of overhauling the electricity grid.
He described the nuclear policy as “wildly optimistic”, in light of the report’s findings.
“[It] thought about those criticisms, analysed those criticisms and found that those criticisms don’t stack up,” Mr Bowen said.
………………………………..In what Mr Graham described as an “amazing achievement” in an inflationary environment, the CSIRO found battery costs had tumbled 20 per cent in the 12 months to June 30, while there had been back-to-back decreases of 8 per cent for large-scale solar.
Wind projects, by contrast, increased by 2 per cent last year following a whopping jump of 35 per cent in 2022-23 and an 8 per cent hike in 2023-24.
Cost estimates for miniature nuclear plants called small modular reactors (SMRs), meanwhile, were still by far and away considered the most expensive type of new energy project……https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-09/nuclear-power-plant-twice-as-costly-as-renewables/104691114
If you don’t know, vote no on nuclear
Paul SEKFY,
Yarranbella. News Of The Area – Modern Media – , https://www.newsofthearea.com.au/letter-to-the-editor-if-you-dont-know-vote-no-on-nuclear?fbclid=IwY2xjawHCJhpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfZmi7k4NSrBSYSgCBdH1DMvb4qmQAyFkXq6z6NPT1O3fwFestYaRYCKdg_aem_Ce9U6F-WQb71jMpXOintCw
THE fatuous debate about potential nuclear power options for Australia cannot be taken seriously.
There is no credible evidence supporting any such proposal either economically or environmentally in the Australian context.
The most recent Royal Commission, in 2016 in South Australia, into the nuclear fuel cycle concluded as much.
The history of nuclear power plant accidents and disasters should sound enough warning.
There is an increasing level of radioactive pollution due to the nuclear fuel cycle more generally and the ongoing release of radioactive material continues.
We now have a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia due to our AUKUS agenda, but we have not been able to locate a necessary more permanent nuclear waste storage facility anywhere.
Sensible people do not want one to be anywhere.
This should signal game over but sadly not.
The economics do not add up and the time taken to build reactors will not assist in meeting our essential carbon reduction targets.
Further concentration of power generation capital in the hands of a wealthy few, regardless of suggested initial taxpayer investment is clearly not desirable or justifiable.
Just look at the coal and oil industries in terms of their dominant power and influence.
Owned by an elite few, they continue to pollute and expect subsidies to do so.
We now recently have seen how this folly grows.
Locally we have proponents of nuclear power promoting that it is somehow in our interests to pay them our money to hear these paid proponents spruik their theories.
Creative and clever solutions to energy and climate are needed, not this dangerous misdirection.
If you don’t know, vote no is the most appropriate advice with regard to the nuclear issue.
Surely a more sensible nuclear agenda for humanity and us Australians is a ban on nuclear weapons.
What happened to integrity and honor in the age of Technocracy?
Charles Hugh Smith, oftwominds.com, Fri, 06 Dec 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/496524-What-happened-to-integrity-and-honor-in-the-age-of-Technocracy
The hope here is that facing the reality of moral collapse frees us of the delusion that fiddling with technocratic financial abstractions and policy tweaks can reverse moral collapse.
Ours is a technocratic culture with a short attention span, and so problems and solutions are understood to be 1) technocratic and 2) instant. The problem is something that can be distilled down to a spreadsheet, formula, algorithm or legalistic policy, and the solution is some modification of spreadsheet, formula, algorithm or legalistic policy: all our problems will go away if we just end the Fed, switch to cryptocurrency, tweak some laws, get rid of the bankers, eliminate an agency, and so on.
These solutions will offer immediate relief. The problems will start melting away the minute we modify the spreadsheet, algorithm, financial settings or legal code.
But what if the problem is the collapse of integrity and honor, a moral rot that has consumed the foundations of our social order? If this is the root problem, then technocratic-financial solutions are the equivalent of excising a wart from the big toe and declaring that as a result of this procedure, the brain cancer has been cured.
What if the problem is that everything we’re cheering as Progress is actually the opposite–it’s Anti-Progress? What if all the technocratic “advances” that are constantly being hyped as wondrous are actually harming our physical and mental health?
So a product labeled as a “veggie snack” that’s nothing more than fat-soaked, sugary potato starch is lauded because it’s immensely profitable, a virtue gained by deceiving parents into thinking a “veggie snack” is a healthy snack.
That this is a culture in moral collapse is obvious, but we dare not admit it. That integrity and honor have decayed to the point of parody is equally obvious, but that too doesn’t register in a culture attuned to novelty, profit, gadgets, legalese, techno-fantasies and technocratic “solutions” to problems that aren’t even visible to technocrats.
Integrity and honor have, along with everything else, been commoditized into something we sell as a “product” or “enhancement.” Virtue-signaling has replaced actual integrity, and as the host of my latest podcast observed, the job of corporate CEOs is not to make quality products; their job is to elevate the corporation’s stock price by whatever means are available–including hollowing out quality, reliability and durability.
Seeking a Culture of Honor and Integrity with Emerson Fersch and Amy LeNoble (59 min)
In this state of moral collapse, we look to centralized authorities to solve all our problems. But the collapse of integrity and honor does not have a legal, financial or technocratic solution. We have to reverse that collapse ourselves rather than rely on centralized diktats from on high to fix what’s broken.
Before we get to the hope, let’s first review reality. Here is loneliness–soaring. – [excellent graphics here, on original]
And we all know how positive online interactions are for our collective mental health:
Every one of these graphics depicts a social order in collapse, yet this truth is greeted with silence or delusional misdirections and self-referential parodies being passed off as “solutions.”
Let’s say we want a lifestyle stripped of denial, moral rot, techno-fantasies and technocratic delusions, a lifestyle of responsibility, accountability, integrity and honor. Oops, sorry, that lifestyle is out of stock and we don’t anticipate any reordering.
The hope here is that facing the reality of moral collapse frees us of the delusion that fiddling with technocratic financial abstractions and policy tweaks can reverse moral collapse and Anti-Progress. We are then free to see the problem is spiritual and cultural, realms that we change in our own lives, not by waiting around for central authorities–the state, Big Tech, etc.–to fix for us.
We need a new way of living, not more gadgets and financial “innovations.” A restoration of basic integrity and honor cannot be achieved by technocratic “solutions”–policies, crypto, apps, algos, AI–for the belief that these are solutions has blinded us to the decay and collapse of the foundations of the social order.
Yes, it’s understandable that we all want a solution to the collapse of integrity and honor to be done for us by some new app or a new law, but that’s like thinking the wart on the big toe is the source of the brain cancer. Real social change comes from the ground up, not the top down. I explore these themes in my new book The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century.
(free sample chapter)
New podcast:Seeking a Culture of Honor and Integrity with Emerson Fersch and Amy LeNoble (59 min)
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 