3 ms·

Could you offer some insight into why you believe this is the case? As someone in my 20s, I don’t think I know anyone who is opposed to nuclear. From my vantag

Could you offer some insight into why you believe this is the case? As someone in my 20s, I don’t think I know anyone who is opposed to nuclear. From my vantage it’s not clear why this would be considered a lost battle.

hvs 6y ago
I think he's saying that research is far behind on fission because it hasn't been supported, and since it takes so long (and so much money) to spin up new plants, that it's better to invest that money into renewables. That's the impression I got. I don't know enough about the specifics to say if I agree with it or not. The opposition to nuclear was so effective in the 70's and 80's that they shutdown any further development on it. That's probably why you don't know anyone opposed to it. It's not really even an option anymore.
onelastjob 6y ago
In my opinion, the biggest issue with nuclear energy is that you have to trust the competency of both the companies running the plants and the governments of the countries those plants exist in. The Fukushima disaster is a good example. The plant was set up to switch to backup power generators in the event of an earthquake, but those generators were located in basements that would flood in the event of a tsunami. Since a tsunami is usually caused by an earthquake, this was a bad plan. A Fukushima employee testified that the vice president of the company running the plant knew from a 2008 safety test that the sea walls were too low, but ultimately scrapped plans to improve the sea walls [1]. If this can happen in a country like Japan, how can we assume nuclear power plants in countries with struggling governments can be maintained safely? https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face-trail-one-worlds-most-radioactive-886025 https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face...
- imtringued 6y ago
  At that point the entire plant should have been shut down and decommissioned and a new one should have been built in its place. It would have been the one best investments in the entire history of the Japan. Fukushima is just a bottomless money pit now.

hvs 6y ago

I think he's saying that research is far behind on fission because it hasn't been supported, and since it takes so long (and so much money) to spin up new plants, that it's better to invest that money into renewables. That's the impression I got. I don't know enough about the specifics to say if I agree with it or not. The opposition to nuclear was so effective in the 70's and 80's that they shutdown any further development on it. That's probably why you don't know anyone opposed to it. It's not really even an option anymore.

onelastjob 6y ago

In my opinion, the biggest issue with nuclear energy is that you have to trust the competency of both the companies running the plants and the governments of the countries those plants exist in. The Fukushima disaster is a good example. The plant was set up to switch to backup power generators in the event of an earthquake, but those generators were located in basements that would flood in the event of a tsunami. Since a tsunami is usually caused by an earthquake, this was a bad plan. A Fukushima employee testified that the vice president of the company running the plant knew from a 2008 safety test that the sea walls were too low, but ultimately scrapped plans to improve the sea walls [1]. If this can happen in a country like Japan, how can we assume nuclear power plants in countries with struggling governments can be maintained safely? https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face-trail-one-worlds-most-radioactive-886025 https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owners-face...

imtringued 6y ago
At that point the entire plant should have been shut down and decommissioned and a new one should have been built in its place. It would have been the one best investments in the entire history of the Japan. Fukushima is just a bottomless money pit now.