3 ms·
It's been my view for a long time that Green Party has been unreasonably stupid being generally so hard core anti-nuclear that they can't even think about logic
by tekkk 7y ago
It's been my view for a long time that Green Party has been unreasonably stupid being generally so hard core anti-nuclear that they can't even think about logically anymore. Like it's one of the best clean energy sources out there, works in any climate and location and the waste is quite trivial to store away for time being - until we find out a way to use it. But no, they rather stoke fear with doomsday scenarios scarier than another and advocate building expensive wind turbines and solar panels in places where they just can't support the energy demands of the whole country.
It's just dumb. They are too stuck emotionally with their idealism on "non-polluting" things. Everything pollutes, nuclear waste albeit worse than the normal garbage can be taken care of quite easily. I'd rather have that than coal plants. Sure it would be nice to not to have even the nuclear waste, but sometimes you have to be pragmatic. That's what engineering is about.
Here's a fun story I heard about the woefully famous Finnish Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant. As some of you might know it was the most expensive building in the world for a while costing 8.5 billion euros (it seems some hotel complex in Mecca is now more expensive with 12 billions). Why you might ask? Well Olkiluoto 3 is a nuclear plant with 1600 MW output consisting of only a single reactor, unlike no other plant. Commonly nuclear plants are built in sets of 2 reactors, so that they are easier to maintain (one is still running when the other is offline) and in general easier to build than one massive reactor. But why only 1 reactor you ask? Well, as some Nokia engineer told me in sauna, the administration at the time consisted of multiple parties one of them being the Green Party. And Green Party was terribly afraid of nuclear energy, and the decision to build a new nuclear power plant really didn't sit well with them. Everybody knew that Finland needed a new power source and nuclear power plant was the only viable option. But Green Party just didn't. want. the. nuclear. plant.
So a compromise was made. Green Party agreed to allow the building of a new nuclear plant but only with one reactor. Dumb idea, but I guess they thought that 1 nuclear reactor was less scarier than 2. What the other parties then decided to? Well in order to supply the energy demands Finnish industry required, they said "hey let's build a reactor that in fact has the power of two reactors". Which was never done before, and the results are now well-known.
In the end, what Green Party gained from this? A nuclear power plant with only a one reactor, but which is double the size of regular one and whole thing billions of euros over-budget and everyone generally unhappy. But hey, only one reactor.. I'm not even sure does it produce the same nuclear waste as two reactors would. A major success nonetheless.
- hannob 7y ago> Well, as some Nokia engineer told me in sauna That sounds like a very reliable source. Thanks for enlightening us.
- tekkk 7y agoSo you think he was lying then? Jesus christ what an attitude, do you want me to find some news to support my claim? Should I put disclaimer marks around my text that I have not researched this with a notebook in my hand? I can't believe how arrogant one can be, to write-off my whole reply while subjective, well explained, because that I couldn't verify the sources of what somebody said to me and which is only a story to validate my original point - that Green Party doesn't seem to be capable thinking about nuclear power rationally. EDIT: Really, downvotes? It's easy to disagree but to do so without contributing anything constructive is just worthless. I'm not changing my mind, frankly it's doing the opposite. It's a fact that Green Party was in the administration at the time the Olkiluoto 3 was decided, but I'm not going to research it any further than that. It's just so low-effort for you to press down or just write a two sentence snarky reply. Should I then return the favor and do the same for any reasonable anti-nuclear comment that I just don't disagree with? That is what a petty person would do, but I'm fine with my downvotes. I think it's just reinforcing my point.