4 ms·

I think most people understand the benefits and greenness of nuclear compared to other forms of energy generation. Yet it is also superficial to plainly say "n

by code51 8y ago

I think most people understand the benefits and greenness of nuclear compared to other forms of energy generation. Yet it is also superficial to plainly say "nuclear is safe". That's obviously more complicated than that. Chernobyl, Fukushima (widely known, 2011), Marcoule (2011), Ibaraki (1999), WIPP (2014) etc. These are not events like "Uber car killed a person but self-driving cars are the future" thing, these events are actual evidence that human error plays a huge part in dealing with nuclear systems. Plus, when you think about the waste, it doesn't seem so green anymore. Maybe greener when you're throwing radioactive stuff into space. What I'm saying is, it's not a simple issue that "average people don't understand" Actually we see that average people pick most pragmatic options when economically pressed. Regulations are there for a reason. Personally, I don't want spacecraft throwing radioactive material onto our own atmosphere.

nickik 8y ago
> I think most people understand the benefits and greenness of nuclear compared to other forms of energy generation. No they do not. Even in France the majoirty of people believe that nuclear causes more CO2. Another example is the impact of Uranium mining, there is a waste overestimation of the imact on uranium mining compared to the mining you would have to do for ANY other energy source. There is a waste spread of misinformation about nuclear. Organisation like Greenpeace, Sierra Club have spent the last 50 years spreading misinformation with really very little pro-nuclear opposition. > Yet it is also superficial to plainly say "nuclear is safe". That's obviously more complicated than that. Chernobyl, Fukushima (widely known, 2011), Marcoule (2011), Ibaraki (1999), WIPP (2014) etc. Nothing is 100% safe. People say solar is safe all the time, yet it kills more people then nuclear by a factor of 10x. And that includes all the deaths from Chernobyl. > Plus, when you think about the waste, it doesn't seem so green anymore. Maybe greener when you're throwing radioactive stuff into space. Nuclear waste does not hurt nature or anybody at all. A lot of that waste will be fuel for nuclear reactors of the future. We need a small amount of long term storage, and the money for that has already been payed. Its just a political dead lock that prevents a soluiton with practically zero impact on the envoirment threwout the whole supply chain. > What I'm saying is, it's not a simple issue that "average people don't understand" Actually we see that average people pick most pragmatic options when economically pressed. That is actually totally false. Avg peoples opinions are not right outside a 'wisdom of crowds' kind of knowlage. If you have bias then the avg people are wrong. The dangers of radiation and/or nuclear waste are a perfect example. The relative fear of nuclear vs coal. Coal plants, if they were nuclear, culd not operate because they are to radioactive. Regulation exist for a reason, but that does not mean that they are not harmful, self-contradicting or efficent. Your blue-eyed view about government processes is contradicted by political sience.

by code51 8y ago

nickik 8y ago

> I think most people understand the benefits and greenness of nuclear compared to other forms of energy generation. No they do not. Even in France the majoirty of people believe that nuclear causes more CO2. Another example is the impact of Uranium mining, there is a waste overestimation of the imact on uranium mining compared to the mining you would have to do for ANY other energy source. There is a waste spread of misinformation about nuclear. Organisation like Greenpeace, Sierra Club have spent the last 50 years spreading misinformation with really very little pro-nuclear opposition. > Yet it is also superficial to plainly say "nuclear is safe". That's obviously more complicated than that. Chernobyl, Fukushima (widely known, 2011), Marcoule (2011), Ibaraki (1999), WIPP (2014) etc. Nothing is 100% safe. People say solar is safe all the time, yet it kills more people then nuclear by a factor of 10x. And that includes all the deaths from Chernobyl. > Plus, when you think about the waste, it doesn't seem so green anymore. Maybe greener when you're throwing radioactive stuff into space. Nuclear waste does not hurt nature or anybody at all. A lot of that waste will be fuel for nuclear reactors of the future. We need a small amount of long term storage, and the money for that has already been payed. Its just a political dead lock that prevents a soluiton with practically zero impact on the envoirment threwout the whole supply chain. > What I'm saying is, it's not a simple issue that "average people don't understand" Actually we see that average people pick most pragmatic options when economically pressed. That is actually totally false. Avg peoples opinions are not right outside a 'wisdom of crowds' kind of knowlage. If you have bias then the avg people are wrong. The dangers of radiation and/or nuclear waste are a perfect example. The relative fear of nuclear vs coal. Coal plants, if they were nuclear, culd not operate because they are to radioactive. Regulation exist for a reason, but that does not mean that they are not harmful, self-contradicting or efficent. Your blue-eyed view about government processes is contradicted by political sience.