6 ms·
I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology. Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inacti
by searine 7y ago
I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology.
Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.
- ixtli 7y agoThe really grim reality is that many environmentalists who correctly point the finger at unaccountable capitalists are themselves doing extreme harm by demonizing the only technology that can really help us in the next 10 years.
- ozborn 7y ago"demonizing the only technology" Really, the only technology? Not inshore wind turbines? Not hydrochlorofluorocarbon elimination? "that can really help us in the next 10 years." I doubt California could build a nuclear power plant in 10 years, and even if they did it would be crazy expensive and still take several years before it became operational. There are better ways to reduce and remove CO2 for the money. Having said that, I (and probably many environmentalists) would still keep Diablo Canyon given the sunk costs and benefits. However it doesn't mean I think we should be spending money building more nuclear power plants.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoAnd more plants could have meant decommissioning dangerous older plants, sooner. Could have saved accidents.
- Krasnol 7y agoYou could still decommission them for safety reasons and not just go on ignoring or hiding it. Maybe that would give back some of the lost faith in the technology. Meanwhile humans doing stupid stuff are still a problem with nuclear. Recently we had this guy with his Bitcoin mining rig and whatever happened in Russia.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoYou can't take any power generator offline for any length of time, without tremendous political backlash. People need their air conditioners! But new ones often dwarf the previous ones, and when they come online, then you can take an old, small one offline.
- Krasnol 7y agoIt's not like lifetime of those plants has been something that just came up recently. You have to plan for that and if you didn't, you need to buy power elsewhere and pay the price for your negligence. This would be the way to go if you care for safety. If you don't, you shouldn't build even more of those reactors because this technology is obviously nothing for you.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoBond issue, rate raising - all up to the public. And the public says "No more nuclear!"
- Krasnol 7y agoYeah, I mean, I say that too. The tech is dangerous, humans are irresponsible greedy idiots who should not handle it and we have no space for the waste from production and from decommission. Also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astrid/france-drops-plans-to-build-sodium-cooled-nuclear-reactor-idUSKCN1VK0MC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoAll contrary to how modern reactors work. No human intervention required; waste not the issue. Its FUD like that, that keeps accidents happening. Because we can't decommission old reactors by building new ones.
- 7y ago
- ashleyn 7y agoThree Mile Island and Chernobyl were practically PR disasters for the nuclear industry and all within ten years.