3 ms·

Greenpeace isn't that influential, the reality is that the economics of nuclear never added up. Also, there really is something off-putting about leaving behin

• mc32 7y ago
  Enough to impress college kids and stay at home moms to protest and oppose construction of new plants.
• omginternets 7y ago
  France is a shining counter-example to your claim.
  • _ph_ 7y ago
    That isn't that clear-cut. France has lots of nuclear power, but most of the power plants are getting quite old and eventually have to be dismantled and replaced. We will see how affordable the nuclear electricity is, after all costs have been paid. I don't think they will be replacing nuclear power plants with new ones, at current costs. Still, currently electricity is way cheaper and much cleaner than in Germany. I certainly disagree with the amount of coal used in Germany.
    • omginternets 7y ago
      That's a very strange way of saying "it brought them cheap, abundant, safe, eco-friendly electricity for nearly 60 years." Yes, the infrastructure is aging. Yes, it needs to be replaced ... with more nuclear power. It has a proven track-record. It works well with the existing grid architecture (which avoids massive costs). It's eco-friendly. The thing that prevents nuclear plants from being built is not nuclear technology, but rather public opinion. Revisionist comments like yours, are doing humanity a disservice.
      • _ph_ 7y ago
        Please claim that nuclear is cheap only after all bills have been paid. Dismantling a reactor can cost a billion or more, the radioactive waste needs to be stored for millenia. And France will show, that you can't just replace nuclear reactors. They are certainly trying, but modern reactors are increadibly espensive. So they are currently building... one.