3 ms·
> Nuclear has been sponsored with zillions of government money and lots of pro-nuclear propaganda. Civilian Nuclear industry was always pretty tiny compared to
by nickik 8y ago
> Nuclear has been sponsored with zillions of government money and lots of pro-nuclear propaganda.
Civilian Nuclear industry was always pretty tiny compared to the competition.
Funny how all this propaganda was useless as people (including smart people) believe lots of nonsense about nuclear that stems from lies made up by Greenpeace types.
I literally talked to a highly educated people who believe utter scientifically false stuff about nuclear because these lies have been embedded so deeply in our culture.
I consider it one of the most effective propaganda campaigns ever. I wish the nuclear industry was half as good as Greenpeace at promoting their ideas.
> We had a discussion about this for two decades. We observed more zillions put into nuclear with ever less return.
Except of course that it is the largest low CO2 energy source and has saved the world from billions of tons of CO2. Counties like France have been at CO2 levels that would basically solve global warming (or as close as you are gone get without replacing transportation fuel) but the rest of the nations did not follow.
You seem to assume that I said that every single failure of any nuclear plant ever is the responsibility of the eco people. That is not what I'm saying. The nuclear industry and governments have made tons of bad design choices, in nuclear and lots of other things.
The drama made over nuclear power, nuclear waste and so on has thrown a huge wrench into everything nulcear. Its incredibly hard to cite a project. Its incredibly hard to get political support for a project. Its incredibly hard to build a research reactor. Its incredibly hard to even get a licence for anything or specially materials. Its basically impossible to develop a new reactor type. These issue go from research to operation on every level the environment is terrible for nuclear.
The West started out making new reactors all the time and the reactors built back then were incredible cost competitive and up to that point nuclear had a speed of adoption unseen by any technology ever. This progress was essentially stop and grind to a halt because
> it was fully exposed in Japan, where the reactors are still mostly shutdown
Guess what, if you shut down fully function reactors for political reason its not the nuclear industries fault. Japan does not have a great industry but the idea that after Fukushima all nuclear plants had to be shut of was an idiotic political move that killed many more people then it saved (as it saved a grand total of 0 people).
> Before Fukushima its reactors were inspected and rated save.
The US Regulatory agency told Japan that these reactors were exposed but for political reasons Japan wanted to build on the coast.
> Building them and in this way in an area of high seismic activity was simply a failure.
False. The reactor didn't care about the seismic activity it had no issue what so ever.
In fact had the reactor itself not been shut down, it could have delivered the energy for its own cooling system.
> Thus undermines any trust into the industry and government - not green eco propaganda
Yeah lets play the lets focus on isolated examples. The nuclear industry global has the least amount of deaths per energy produced. And it has the lest amount of resource use and the least amount of pollution.
Basically 0 people died from civilian nuclear in the Western nations, a couple 100 that have long term lower life expectancy. However we build more gas plants, coal plants, wind turbines and so on.
- lispm 8y ago> Civilian Nuclear industry was always pretty tiny compared to the competition There is lots of civilian nuclear industry. But they all depend on government money, regulation, funding, insurance, ... And they prefer to have monopolies - like in France. > I wish the nuclear industry was half as good as Greenpeace at promoting their ideas. I think you are mistaken. The failure of the nuclear industry is self made. Entirely. > Counties like France have been at CO2 levels that would basically solve global warming (or as close as you are gone get without replacing transportation fuel) but the rest of the nations did not follow. Luckily - we would have a world full of nuclear reactors and large amounts of material nobody knows to handle. Plus the nuclear technology would be a wonderful entry for nuclear weapons. > The West started out making new reactors all the time and the reactors built back then were incredible cost competitive and up to that point nuclear had a speed of adoption unseen by any technology ever. We got many out-dated reactors with very little safety, no storage and lots of nuclear waste in return. > if you shut down fully function reactors for political reason If. But it was not the case. There was a large earth quake. The nuclear industry was exposed as a fraud with nuclear installation in areas with high seismic risks. > The US Regulatory agency told Japan that these reactors were exposed but for political reasons Japan wanted to build on the coast. See. The nuclear industry is not in a vacuum. In old nuclear installations there is so much money involved, that there is a high corruption risk. If you don't deal with these types of risks, then the best technological solutions can and will FAIL. Technology is always embedded in a society and since billions of revenue streams are involved, we can't expect that safety first will prevail. Instead greed and corruption is much stronger. Or the will to have a nuclear industry to have technology transfer for weapon production. In many countries the weapon technology was first. Like in the UK, where the first power plants were modified designs used to create weapon material. And in the case of Fukushima we are talking about Japan - a technological advanced nation. We are not even talking about the shitty nuclear industry in, say, Russia. > alse. The reactor didn't care about the seismic activity it had no issue what so ever. Of course they do. Every reactor NEEDS a full inspection after a major earth quake. Claiming that nothing happened WITHOUT inspection is impossible. Power plants are built to certain levels of expected events. If new information about events and their risks is available existing installations need to be approved again... > In fact had the reactor itself not been shut down, it could have delivered the energy for its own cooling system. If? It did. If it hadn't failed it would still be running. But it failed. Badly. Multiple ways. > The nuclear industry global has the least amount of deaths per energy produced. I try to explain again: the clean-up of Fukushima will cost probably half a trillion dollar. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi... > Basically 0 people died from civilian nuclear in the Western nations It's just that a single incident caused a many year long shutdown of basically all nuclear reactors in Japan. Many of them will never be restarted again. The economic loss is unbelievably large.