3 ms·

Controversial opinion: nuclear has a bad reputation because the coal industry wants it to have a bad reputation. In reality it's one of the best energy sources

• unanswered 6y ago
  This fails to take into account the complicity of bad actors hawking other non-solutions like wind and solar.
  • nickik 6y ago
    Wind and solar were not really a option for much of the time since nuclear was invented. And we have very clear evidence that the coal and gas industry have been fighting against nuclear since its inception. It was not uncommon even in the 70s for 'environmentalist' anti-nuclear organization to be sponsored by fossil fuel industry.
• thehappypm 6y ago
  This is the mainstream HN opinion. The controversial opinion? Nuclear sucks because you lose a city every generation, even if you're the most advanced, organization nation on Earth (Japan) you can still make mistakes that have consequences for decades to centuries.
  • sir_bearington 6y ago
    > you lose a city every generation No, you don't. Fukushima had a 2010 population of 20,000. It has 17,000 today. And it dropped from 22,000 to 20,000 between 2000 and 2020 so not all of the population reduction was due to nuclear disaster. Likewise, Pripyat was a planned town designed specifically to support the nuclear plants. When the nuclear plants closes, the town had no reason to continue existing. Like mining towns when the mines are exhausted.