5 ms·
The problem with nuclear is the slow iteration speed and extreme cost of failure. Those are not good properties if you want to push technology forward quickly.
by aeternum 5y ago
The problem with nuclear is the slow iteration speed and extreme cost of failure.
Those are not good properties if you want to push technology forward quickly. The great thing about solar and wind is that we can iterate very quickly and catastrophic failure costs are nearly non-existent.
Nuclear still has great potential but the costs are just too high (and maybe they should be).
- lm28469 5y agoAnyone who argue against nuclear while failing to acknowledge the issues of solar and wind, which are 10 times more problematic, can't be truthful. Unless we enter a _major_ era of degrowth there is no way we'll get out of fossil fuels without nuclear.
- aeternum 5y agoWhat are the 10x more problematic issues with solar and wind?
- kinjba11 5y agoBriefly: solar and wind energy requires sun or wind and tons of space relative to fossil/nuclear. Not every place has those. "A reality check on renewables" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
- actinium226 5y agoWhy do you need high iteration speed? Nuclear is pretty safe as it is. Chernobyl was using reactors that were obsolete in 1986. Fukushima was pretty fucked up in having the generators below sea level, but the result of that was 6 people got cancer.
- aeternum 5y agoFukushima may not have caused much loss of life, but you also need to consider the economic damage. Natural disasters, terrorism, and unanticipated design flaws (generators below sea level) are important considerations. Those add costs that aren't always accounted for.
- actinium226 5y agoYes, exactly, consider the economic damage of NOT building nuclear plants and allowing the climate to continue to change! Surely that's a higher economic damage than that caused by Fukushima+Chernobyl.