4 ms·
Redutio ad bombarolum: Somebody detonates a bomb or throws a plane into a nuclear power plant => possible irreparable ecological disaster. Somebody detonates
by gioele 10y ago
Redutio ad bombarolum:
Somebody detonates a bomb or throws a plane into a nuclear power plant => possible irreparable ecological disaster.
Somebody detonates a bomb or throws a plane into a solar plant => a few broken glasses to clean up.
You choose.
More seriously, nuclear power is the future of clean energy. But (future) nuclear fusion, not (current) nuclear fission.
- Cpoll 10y agoSomeone runs coal and gas plants for several decades => Possible irreparable ecolo- Whoops, too late.
- vonmoltke 10y agoWithout quantifying "possible" and "irreparable" this is nothing but fearmongering. What would it take to accidentally or intentionally breach the containment vault on a reactor? What are the chances of that happening? Ignoring paranoid overreactions, what is the worst ecological damage that could be done? How is it "irreparable"?
- Kenji 10y agoActually, as it stands, modern nuclear power plants should withstand such a plane attack.
- default_user 10y agoYou may be joking, but seriously the possible irreparable damage is indeed an argument for me that gets insufficiently addressed by the pro nuclear people. Off course, more people die because of coal power plants and off course the net loss of land due to global warming is bigger compared to nuclear due to rising sea levels. But you can still go to those flooded places (albeit in a diving suite) and not get cancer... This is not the case for the Chernobyl area or Fukushima. This place is lost and cannot be used by humans for a long time. This cannot not happen when using coal power plants. Take a small country like Switzerland. We cannot afford to lose any land. You can do something about the death of people in the coal mining industry and you can also do something to reduce the atmospheric CO2. But once a nuclear accident happens the land is lost and nothing can be done about it. And this point is never addressed properly. I don't care about the probability, I care about the possibility.
- berntb 10y agoI don't understand why environmentalists have problems with forced natural reserves like Chernobyl and Fukushima? But maybe I should be happy -- if they had a clue, then they might start building dirty bomb together with the islamists. :-)
- sliverstorm 10y agoHah, there's a funny thought. You're right though, for every life form other than humans, the meltdown in Chernobyl has had happy results. For them, exposure to radiation poisoning is better than exposure to humans.
- Tharre 10y ago"you can also do something to reduce the atmospheric CO2" Would you mind sharing this 'something' that magically makes CO2 disappear? Because unless you're suggesting to stop using cars and electricity, there'd be a lot of people interested in that method to stop climate change. "Take a small country like Switzerland. We cannot afford to lose any land." Meaning since Switzerland can't afford to lose land, other countries have to. But then why not just built nuclear power plants outside of Switzerland and import power instead? "I don't care about the probability, I care about the possibility." No, you always care about the probability. There is a possibility that tomorrow a big asteroid crashes into Earth and extinguishes all humans. But the possibility alone doesn't justify the trillions that would be required to mitigate that risk.
- pitaj 10y agoYou can use excess power from nuke plants at night to power carbon scrubbers and store that CO2 in underground caverns or even convert it into fuel.
- nimmer 10y agoNot to mention that Chernobyl and Fukushima are far from the worst case scenario. An active power plant or a nuclear waste storage facility being destroyed (e.g. as an act of war) and dispersing a large amount of fuel/waste in the environment would be orders of magnitude worse.
- ageofwant 10y agopossible irreparable ecological disaster ? Have a look at Chernobyl, its a wildlife haven. Yes there are ecological damage but the fact that humans don't go near it (apart from the still operating other reactor buildings) more than makes up for that. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident ever, and its a paradise compared to say, Manhattan Island.
- witty_username 10y ago> Somebody detonates a bomb or throws a plane into a nuclear power plant => possible irreparable ecological disaster. https://www.google.com/search?q=plane+crashing+into+nuclear+reactor https://www.google.com/search?q=plane+crashing+into+nuclear+... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY Sounds like reactors can manage a plane crashing into them (and so perhaps a bomb also).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- whamlastxmas 10y agoModern nuclear power plants would not be damaged to the point of endangering anyone outside the plant if you flew a plane into it. You would need military grade missiles/artillery to damage a nuclear plant more than a plane. The plants are ridiculously overbuilt. If you wanted to fly a plane into a target to make a statement, a nuclear plant would be the dumbest choice unless you were hired by the oil and coal industries.
- sounds 10y agoThank you for mentioning fusion. My money is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#Going_public https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#Going_public I realize it does not appear nearly as promising as the many other fusion research programs. Having many competing fusion research programs is a good thing!