4 ms·
I feel like nuclear power is the only tech that people perceive to be static in development. Isn’t it like saying we should have stopped using computers in the
by nipponese 5y ago
I feel like nuclear power is the only tech that people perceive to be static in development. Isn’t it like saying we should have stopped using computers in the 40s because they were big, expensive, slow, and we’re only frequently used to kill people?
- Gravityloss 5y agoNuclear power was great until 1986. Then it was bad. Then it was getting a bit better until 2011. Then it was bad again. Now it's a getting bit better again.
- Accujack 5y ago...and up until today, we're still using reactor technology from 70 years ago.
- fastball 5y agoWhich to me indicates that it is a fantastic technology if they're still around after 70 years. Nobody is building new reactors with 70 year old designs though.
- andredz 5y agoWhy? Could you source your statement? Not that I'm doubting you, but I would like to learn more. :)
- imagine99 5y ago1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nuclear_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nuclear_deb... 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... and in the aftermath for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German...
- andredz 5y agoOne would hope that after such a disaster, and given the pros of the underlying technology, more funding and research would be focused on safety, rather than abandoning it. I wonder to which degree has nuclear power's association with nuclear weapons affected its public perception.
- saganus 5y agoIt's a reference to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011
- andredz 5y agoThanks. (Is a simple thanks a valid HN comment?)
- grayfaced 5y ago1986 is chernobyl, 2011 is fukushima. His comment isn't on safety, but perception of safety.
- andredz 5y agoYou are right, perception… Knowing that those years referred to those disasters, it feels a tad ridiculous to have asked for sources, but thanks :-)
- gnulinux 5y agoFukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 was among the worst nuclear disasters in history; not only because its human toll was so high, but also because it was the "final straw" -- so to say -- in public opinion in Western countries that made people scared of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy remains the safest, cleanest way to produce energy but Chernobyl and Fukushima significantly reduced the funding going into this kind of research, because public opinion was very much against nuclear power. It is getting better recently, but if history shows anything in the next 20 to 30 years we will have another disaster that will change public opinion again.
- beerandt 5y ago>not only because its human toll was so high 1 radiation death and 18 injuries? (Only 2 of which involved possible radiation exposure.) The "overly-conservative" decision to evacuate such a large area killed more people than if they hadn't evacuated at all. Even Chernobyl only killed ~30 people, with maybe another 30 cases of cancer that workers had since then.
- gnulinux 5y agoSorry I phrased it wrong. I meant to say "not because". That "only" is extraneous.
- andredz 5y agoI see. Thanks for the explanation. I had been thinking in terms of the technology rather than in its public perception (although sure… that perception influences funding for the technology). Now I see that I would have been well served by looking up 'nuclear 2011' and 'nuclear 1986' since those disasters are very famous. But thanks to all for telling me. :)
- DannyB2 5y agoYou forgot about 1979.