4 ms·
The main argument against nuclear is that it absolutely requires a highly educated, well organized society and workforce. If something really serious disrupts o
by wazoox 7y ago
The main argument against nuclear is that it absolutely requires a highly educated, well organized society and workforce. If something really serious disrupts our elaborated, complex societies, then nuclear plants will become really dangerous.
With looming climate change, energy crisis, overpopulation and other problems, you can't be sure that we'll be in a stable enough world long enough to be completely safe.
- BurningFrog 7y agoThis, like most anti nuclear arguments, is a standard that is NEVER applied to other industries.
- blub 7y agoWhich other industry can make an area uninhabitable for many decades?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoChemical processing plants? Water management?
- johnisgood 7y agoMeat industry especially[1][2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_agricu...
- realusername 7y agoAny dangerous chemical plant
- mandelbrotwurst 7y agoYup. Plus, with nuclear, even if we do everything as safely as possible, there's always a tail risk of a VERY negative event due to causes outside our control. I'm yet to understand why this part of the argument is often so readily dismissed.
- smileysteve 7y agoThat very negative event is less than the expected externalities of coal and in many types of gas exploration
- icebraining 7y ago"It's better than coal" is damning with faint praise. Is there anyone who is openly anti-nuclear and pro-coal?
- blub 7y agoI'm amazed we've had so few accidents, considering how many nuclear plants are located all around Europe. Recently I was reading about an incident in Ukraine, where workers from a nuclear power plant connected the internal network to the internet to mine bitcoin. It's a shame there's no avherald for nuclear power, I bet it would be an interesting read. C. Perrow had access to industry journals when documenting the chapter on nuclear in his "Normal accidents" book. The incidents described there were mind-boggling.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cm2187 7y agoYou could say the same thing of a badly maintained dam, or hazardous chemicals factory.
- smileysteve 7y agoIn some cases not even badly maintained, the nitrogen buildup along with how that affects the life in a properly maintained reservoir have a large cumulative impact.
- chefkoch 7y ago>The main argument against nuclear is that it absolutely requires a highly educated, well organized society and workforce. If something really serious disrupts our elaborated, complex societies, then nuclear plants will become really dangerous. No, i think the main arguments against nuclear is the impact of the problem if something goes really wrong and that everybody is cutting corners making a technology more unsafe than it could be.
- dagw 7y agoThe main argument against nuclear is The other main argument I hear all the time is that building a new nuclear power plant today is so expensive that it will never pay for itself at current electricity prices.
- rhino369 7y agoI wouldn't go so far as to say never. But that's generally the reason why nobody in building them in the United States. But countries with high nuclear usage, like France, show that doesn't have to be the case. If the US proclaimed a new Manhattan Project to go nearly full nuclear for new energy production, it could probably standardize designs, implement fall back safety features, and reduce regulatory costs. A lot of the cost for nuclear in the United States is that you need an army of 800 dollar an hour attorneys to get approval/fight lawsuits trying to stop you.
- dagw 7y agoBut countries with high nuclear usage, like France, show that doesn't have to be the case. Except France isn't really building new power plants either, and the one significant project they do have is way over budget and years behind schedule. They're keeping the plants they have running for as long as its reasonable to do so, but as it looks now they're not going to be replaced by new nuclear plants as they get decommissioned.
- gnopgnip 7y agoThe alternative can be even worse though. Even well maintained coal and natural gas plants pollute more, and are responsible for more deaths than the worst case of nuclear power
- wazoox 7y agoNuclear is better than fossil fuels on many aspects. To keep the Earth inhabitable to humans, we should start closing down coal plants RIGHT NOW and never touch coal again. We should be all working frantically towards stopping using any fossil fuels as quickly as possible. This isn't where we're going...
- rhino369 7y agoSure, if suddenly society is disrupted that is a very big issue. But in that sort of sudden collapse, humanity is pretty screwed already. Making the collapse of society a little worse isn't something we should worry about.
- icebraining 7y agoCompounding a war with an uncontrolled nuclear meltdown seems something we should definitively worry about.