3 ms·
If only nuclear energy had seen such promotion and investment as solar energy, instead of endless hysterical fear-mongering.
by Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
If only nuclear energy had seen such promotion and investment as solar energy, instead of endless hysterical fear-mongering.
- literallycancer 6y agoIt had this kind support in the Soviet Union, didn't it?
- nexuist 6y agoWell, it did, up until one day...
- minikites 6y agoI wonder what the world would look like if the Chernobyl disaster and the Challenger disaster didn't happen. I think both of those events, combined with years of rhetoric, were a turning point in 1986 which really damaged the idea that governments were capable of solving problems and pushing society forward. We didn't give up after the Apollo 1 fire. We did give up after the Challenger disaster and Chernobyl.
- redisman 6y agoThere was insane hype for all things atomic for decades. A few catastrophes like Chernobyl made it very unsexy
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoThis reaction to the Chernobyl is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water.
- Jweb_Guru 6y agoFukushima was not long ago, either. I don't think it's a strong enough reason not to use nuclear at all given the alternatives, but all nuclear plants have fairly catastrophic failure modes in the event of an unforeseen problem and require constant maintenance and supervision in order to keep running. In areas of the world with little political stability or public funding, this makes other solutions much more attractive than they would be in an ideal world. Acting like people are being completely irrational in worrying about nuclear accidents is pretty disrespectful.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoI don't think its hysterical or fear-mongering to ask nuclear proponents to take into consideration the cost of managing nuclear waste. I don't think its fair to draw a line in the sand and declare that those costs are for future generations and don't need to be considered now.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoAll the nuclear waste in the world can fit in one are the size of a soccer field. The only real issue are catastrophic failures - and those are usually prevented by improvements in technology and safety protocols.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoThis is very dismissive and even if true, not really what I'm talking about. I found this article in Scientific American on spent fuel interesting. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-let... I think dry casks are dangerous "forever" and therefore the costs of securing and managing them is effectively infinite.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoOk, if we are talking about 'forever', just put it into the subduction zone of the tectonic plates. In a few million years it'll be deep in the mantle, which is far more hazardous to humans than the disposed nuclear waste.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoOk sure, how much does that cost? First we need to invent the tech, and find a zone that is stable and won't leak, and we have to be super-duper sure of it, then you need to transport the dry casks there and lower them into the mantle. But the facility still needs armed guards "forever" so that terrorists or rogue states can't go and get some radioactive magma and use it as a weapon.