3 ms·
> The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. But aren't these valid sources of fear? War is st
by pvorb 6y ago
> The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management.
But aren't these valid sources of fear?
War is still a thing and Uranium enrichment can be used for both nuclear power plants as well as nuclear weapons.
Improper management is something that is hard to control. Usually the people who live nearby a nuclear power plant have absolutely no insight into how the plant is managed. So why should they be confident in everything being fine. Human error is inevitable and has led to numerous accidents. Why shouldn't this happen again?
- Meandering 6y agoAbsolutely, healthy fear is beyond valid. It's the fear from ignorance that I was referencing. A nuclear meltdown is not an explosion. It's literal a meltdown where the material burns through containment... there is no explosion. The fear of nuclear has prevented investment which could of resulted in far safer technologies entering the market. Technologies like Molten Salt Reactors that have passive meltdown protection[1] and thorium reactors[2] which utilized a material that can't be weaponized through enrichment. A passive safety feature in the Fukushima plant could have prevented that catastrophe. People have a right to not approve of nuclear. I'm only saying that the technology is heavily repressed due to an uneducated public. The truth is that renewable energy will never be as cost effective as gas or oil for base load energy. Nuclear is a clear and viable option for the energy portfolio. It's a shame to see a completely valid option ignored because of unchecked fear. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power