4 ms·

Well, damming rivers turned out to be a bad idea in cases so (Washington State)[https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/06/large

Well, damming rivers turned out to be a bad idea in cases so (Washington State)[https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/06/largest-dam-removal-elwha-river-restoration-environment https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/publ...] is undoing them. Wind turbines require surmounting large technical hurdles with storing energy. Solar takes a lot of resources/space. Heck, in 50 years we might be in a dust bowl and solar doesn't even work. Why would you suggest we prevent using all appropriate options at our disposal? Why not push for using a different type of fuel instead? I didn't grow up during the nuclear scare times. Fukushima wasn't great, but it wasn't so horrific either. If it gets us off coal and natural gas then I'm down.

mikelyons 9y ago
Fukushima isn't over, we don't know what it will have done in the next 50 years yet.
- ploxiln 9y ago
  ... very likely less than coal power plants will have done.
  - mikelyons 9y ago
    Agreed, I'm not pro-nuclear in opposition to coal. But good point.
- saulrh 9y ago
  Estimates of excess deaths due to nuclear, counting chernobyl, are the lowest of any energy technology. This isn't even counting the part where no new nuclear reactor could possibly be as unsafe as Chernobyl or Fukushima in the same way that no modern car could be as unsafe as as a car from the 1960s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >This isn't even counting the part where no new nuclear reactor could possibly be as unsafe as Chernobyl or Fukushima That's what they say after every accident too. "This time, with the new designs, it's different".
    - 15155 9y ago
      Which "new designs" have failed catastrophically?
      - coldtea 9y ago
        The recipe for the catastrophe is design + time, so it's not like "new designs have fewer failures" offers much comfort. Of course they would. Plus, previous installations had fewer potential non-design-related issues, such as terrorism, which (in today's nihilistic "more possible damage, including innocents and even myself" way) wasn't as much a thing in the 60s and 70s.
        saulrh 9y ago
        If you want to talk risk-of-terrorism, look at dams, not nuke plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
        coldtea 9y ago
        At least damns damage only the area relatively near them. The implications of a nuclear catastrophe can impact thousands of miles around, including major cities.
        saulrh 9y ago
        Dams are built on large rivers. Inundations resulting from dam failures tend to follow the path of the river. Cities are also built near large rivers. The Banqiao Dam failure displaced fifteen times as many people as the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters combined. The impending failure of the Mosul Dam is projected to do the same.
coldtea 9y ago
>Why would you suggest we prevent using all appropriate options at our disposal? He already answered that: because not all options are appropriate.

mikelyons 9y ago

Fukushima isn't over, we don't know what it will have done in the next 50 years yet.

ploxiln 9y ago
... very likely less than coal power plants will have done.
- mikelyons 9y ago
  Agreed, I'm not pro-nuclear in opposition to coal. But good point.
saulrh 9y ago
Estimates of excess deaths due to nuclear, counting chernobyl, are the lowest of any energy technology. This isn't even counting the part where no new nuclear reactor could possibly be as unsafe as Chernobyl or Fukushima in the same way that no modern car could be as unsafe as as a car from the 1960s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
- coldtea 9y ago
  >This isn't even counting the part where no new nuclear reactor could possibly be as unsafe as Chernobyl or Fukushima That's what they say after every accident too. "This time, with the new designs, it's different".
  - 15155 9y ago
    Which "new designs" have failed catastrophically?
    - coldtea 9y ago
      The recipe for the catastrophe is design + time, so it's not like "new designs have fewer failures" offers much comfort. Of course they would. Plus, previous installations had fewer potential non-design-related issues, such as terrorism, which (in today's nihilistic "more possible damage, including innocents and even myself" way) wasn't as much a thing in the 60s and 70s.
      - saulrh 9y ago
        If you want to talk risk-of-terrorism, look at dams, not nuke plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
        coldtea 9y ago
        At least damns damage only the area relatively near them. The implications of a nuclear catastrophe can impact thousands of miles around, including major cities.
        saulrh 9y ago
        Dams are built on large rivers. Inundations resulting from dam failures tend to follow the path of the river. Cities are also built near large rivers. The Banqiao Dam failure displaced fifteen times as many people as the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters combined. The impending failure of the Mosul Dam is projected to do the same.

coldtea 9y ago

>Why would you suggest we prevent using all appropriate options at our disposal? He already answered that: because not all options are appropriate.