3 ms·
Besides the fact that people who argue against nuclear are not pro fossil energy, I'm always astonished to see nuclear fans argue with dead people only. As if h
by Krasnol 6y ago
Besides the fact that people who argue against nuclear are not pro fossil energy, I'm always astonished to see nuclear fans argue with dead people only. As if having to evacuate cities and regions could be ignored and accepted as some kind of "safe".
-----
Since the fans of the atom downvote everything not in their frame of reality, I'm now unable to answer anymore so I'll just edit my answer to this comment:
@yongjik: I can't drink enough to follow this argument twisting. Nothing you said makes my argument go away. Those things ARE dangerous. Neither fossil fuel nor cars won't make the risk go away or be hidden in a cloud of mad word twisting.
Also: nobody who makes an argument against nuclear, makes one for fossil fuel. They usually are pro renewable energy. But you know that don't you? You just wanted to derail....
@cestith: acutally MOST of the nuclear reactors did not became a catastrophe. It doesn't change anything about the fact that when it becomes one, it is one.
- cestith 6y agoShow me a city evacuated because it was near a CANDU reactor. Light water plants are not the beginning and end of nuclear power.
- yongjik 6y agoIf you prefer, we don't have to evacuate. We can just tell people to keep living in Fukushima and the number of deaths will be still smaller than fossil fuel plants. People don't evacuate from fossil fuel, not because it's safer, but because you can't, so we just accepted it as facts of life. More people die from vehicle exhaust than Fukushima: where are you going to go?
- addicted 6y agoAnd why are we comparing to fossil fuel plants as opposed to other renewable sources which are cheaper, safer, and less polluting than nuclear? The problem for nuclear is that if you are making a pollution based safety argument for it, the obvious question is why not spend the money you would on nuclear in more cost effective and equally green or greener alternatives (ones which lack a doomsday scenario as a bonus). In reality, nuclear sucks up a lot of green capital for 8-10 years at a minimum, under delivers, if it delivers at all, and does so at an extremely high price. There are new nuclear technologies that have the potential to be cost competitive with other renewables, but they aren’t production ready yet. Why not make these arguments when those technologies are ready.
- Hammershaft 6y agoUnfortunately there is no solution on the near horizon for large scale grid storage of intermittent renewables. I would argue nuclear is our only choice. I made a comment here linking sources on the problems facing grid storage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348355
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lstodd 6y agoFukushima evacuation was an idiotic knee-jerk that killed more people than the alternative of not doing it.
- Krasnol 6y agoYeah I'm sure you'd have been able to calm the people and tell them to stay around a nuclear reactor which might have become the next Tshernobyl while the earth was still shaking....you people are unbelievable sometimes.