3 ms·

I agree that there are risks and waste from nuclear, my main issue is that for some reasons coal plants have larger damage to the environment and population. M

I agree that there are risks and waste from nuclear, my main issue is that for some reasons coal plants have larger damage to the environment and population. My opinion is that we should not rush on building new nuclear plants but finish the ones that are already built, use them to full capacity , invest into research for the safer nuclear versions. I would not like to have a nuclear plant near my house, but if you have to chose between a coal plant that is polluting and radiating all the time is running and a new nuclear plant design that it would fail only in super rare events (there are designs that would be safe even if the cooling system fails) then I definitely don't want the coal plant. Btw nuclear is used in medicine, there are labs that use radioactive materials, I think the number of this would grow and it may end up in countries you don't trust but you can't stop progress,

varjag 7y ago
Natural gas burns quite cleanly. There's a number of European nations that don't have a single active coal power plant and they get by somehow. The reason nuclear crowd loves to focus on coal is it's the worst case conventional technology and hence the easiest to argue against. The arguments against hydro, wind or NG are a lot less convincing.
- anonymou2 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
- simion314 7y ago
  Burning gas still creates CO2, it may be cleaner then coal. Ideally we would not have to chose and we can close all coal,gas and nuclear plants and replace them with renewable, if this is not possible then we should maybe use rationality and not emotions to dictate priorities. This means closing or reducing coal usage, keeping and using nuclear at full capacity .
- hollerith 7y ago
  >There's a number of European nations that don't have a single active coal power plant and they get by somehow. How many of those nations would be royally screwed if Russia ever decides to stop supplying them with fossil fuels?
  - varjag 7y ago
    They couldn't screw Ukraine with gas supplies, so probably not that many.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

varjag 7y ago

Natural gas burns quite cleanly. There's a number of European nations that don't have a single active coal power plant and they get by somehow. The reason nuclear crowd loves to focus on coal is it's the worst case conventional technology and hence the easiest to argue against. The arguments against hydro, wind or NG are a lot less convincing.

anonymou2 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
simion314 7y ago
Burning gas still creates CO2, it may be cleaner then coal. Ideally we would not have to chose and we can close all coal,gas and nuclear plants and replace them with renewable, if this is not possible then we should maybe use rationality and not emotions to dictate priorities. This means closing or reducing coal usage, keeping and using nuclear at full capacity .
hollerith 7y ago
>There's a number of European nations that don't have a single active coal power plant and they get by somehow. How many of those nations would be royally screwed if Russia ever decides to stop supplying them with fossil fuels?
- varjag 7y ago
  They couldn't screw Ukraine with gas supplies, so probably not that many.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]