22 ms·

>What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now? Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima. You might say those were caused by outda

>What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now? Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima. You might say those were caused by outdated tech or bad management. I'm someone who doesn't think my local or national government would be immune to those failings.

mywittyname 7y ago
America has a huge problem with corporations bribing politicians to loosen "costly" regulations at the expense of our health and environment. The country is already destroying itself with fracking and coal mining. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude more devastating. So while nuclear is plenty safe when handled correctly, it's completely understandable to feel like America is not a country which can be trusted to handle things correctly.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > The country is already destroying itself with fracking and coal mining. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude more devastating. All of this is completely wrong. Fracking has enabled us to simultaneously reduce CO2 emissions (by reducing coal mining) while reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Nuclear would be a huge leap forward, again maintaining energy independence (no reliance on Chinese solar panels) while cutting CO2 output. You’ve got it backwards. America, and the rest of the world, has a problem with environmentalists who can’t do cost-benefit analysis. Thanks to nuclear, France hit CO2 emissions per capita of 6.5 tons back in 1990. Now it’s at 4.6. Germany is still around 9. By the time Germany gets to similar levels using wind and solar, France will have been sitting at those lower levels for 50 years. Everyone in Germany becoming vegans tomorrow won’t make up for half a century of unnecessary CO2 emissions because environmentalists were afraid of nuclear.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about the localized effects of fracking, which is leaking into the water supply and probably renders the area around fracking sites uninhabitable. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-cont... We still can't get companies to tell the public what's in these fluids because they are protected trade secrets.
api 7y ago
One thing those disasters have shown about nuclear is that a single accident -- even if there is little loss of life -- absolutely ruins the economics of nuclear power. Even an accident with no loss of life will cost an absolute fortune to clean up and decommission due to how hard it is just to handle and transport the material. Prior to Fukushima nuclear power was fairly economical in Japan. Post-Fukushima and in retrospect it would have been cheaper to cover every roof in Japan with solar panels, build loads of offshore wind, and build massive energy storage facilities and pumped storage reservoirs.
- thrownblown 7y ago
  I'm not doubting you but, do you have some stats to back this up? I'm curious. I would imagine the expense is difficult to determine and quite controversial. Especially when you consider the costs of the effects to the ocean/environment and whatnot that aren't being borne by the japanese people.
  - ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
    Another issue I am surprised doesn't get brought up is that there are only 450 Nuclear Reactors in the world. Any nuclear accident is unacceptable, but what do you think the rate of crashes were in the first 1000 Airplanes? When we don't build nuclear, we don't really get better at nuclear. If the U.S. decided to build 50 Nuclear reactors in relatively remote parts of Nevada to power California. Even if we had another accident, by the time we had finished that project our safety standards would be in a very different place.

mywittyname 7y ago

America has a huge problem with corporations bribing politicians to loosen "costly" regulations at the expense of our health and environment. The country is already destroying itself with fracking and coal mining. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude more devastating. So while nuclear is plenty safe when handled correctly, it's completely understandable to feel like America is not a country which can be trusted to handle things correctly.

rayiner 7y ago
> The country is already destroying itself with fracking and coal mining. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude more devastating. All of this is completely wrong. Fracking has enabled us to simultaneously reduce CO2 emissions (by reducing coal mining) while reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Nuclear would be a huge leap forward, again maintaining energy independence (no reliance on Chinese solar panels) while cutting CO2 output. You’ve got it backwards. America, and the rest of the world, has a problem with environmentalists who can’t do cost-benefit analysis. Thanks to nuclear, France hit CO2 emissions per capita of 6.5 tons back in 1990. Now it’s at 4.6. Germany is still around 9. By the time Germany gets to similar levels using wind and solar, France will have been sitting at those lower levels for 50 years. Everyone in Germany becoming vegans tomorrow won’t make up for half a century of unnecessary CO2 emissions because environmentalists were afraid of nuclear.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about the localized effects of fracking, which is leaking into the water supply and probably renders the area around fracking sites uninhabitable. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-cont... We still can't get companies to tell the public what's in these fluids because they are protected trade secrets.

api 7y ago

One thing those disasters have shown about nuclear is that a single accident -- even if there is little loss of life -- absolutely ruins the economics of nuclear power. Even an accident with no loss of life will cost an absolute fortune to clean up and decommission due to how hard it is just to handle and transport the material. Prior to Fukushima nuclear power was fairly economical in Japan. Post-Fukushima and in retrospect it would have been cheaper to cover every roof in Japan with solar panels, build loads of offshore wind, and build massive energy storage facilities and pumped storage reservoirs.

thrownblown 7y ago
I'm not doubting you but, do you have some stats to back this up? I'm curious. I would imagine the expense is difficult to determine and quite controversial. Especially when you consider the costs of the effects to the ocean/environment and whatnot that aren't being borne by the japanese people.
- ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
  Another issue I am surprised doesn't get brought up is that there are only 450 Nuclear Reactors in the world. Any nuclear accident is unacceptable, but what do you think the rate of crashes were in the first 1000 Airplanes? When we don't build nuclear, we don't really get better at nuclear. If the U.S. decided to build 50 Nuclear reactors in relatively remote parts of Nevada to power California. Even if we had another accident, by the time we had finished that project our safety standards would be in a very different place.