3 ms·

the tragedy is that we'd probably be carbon neutral if it wasn't for activists who lobbied against nuclear energy decades ago because it wasn't "environmentally

• pjc50 5y ago
  It was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons; Greenpeace got their start protesting against atom bomb tests in the Pacific, and later against the dumping of radioactive waste in the sea. The pollutants are uniquely permanent, and not enough effort was made to not just contaminate the world. Perhaps the nuclear industry needs to examine why their marketing failed where the oil industry succeeded.
  • teddyh 5y ago
    From what I understand, nuclear power was “inextricably linked with nuclear weapons” because it was designed to be that way. From what I hear, it can, and could, relatively easily be designed otherwise, but the powers that be wanted nuclear weapons at the time.
    • pjc50 5y ago
      Absolutely; the power generation was almost a side effect of producing plutonium. This also cross funded the projects. Many of the countries with reactors have the bomb (notable exceptions: Canada, Japan, Germany)
  • thehappypm 5y ago
    It's largely because of the free market. There is not really a nuclear "industry", nuclear plants are more of a government thing worldwide. Governments aren't as good at the ruthless cost-cutting and decision-making that is needed to be competitive with the private sector. It's hard to imagine an Exxon-for-nuclear when you consider that nuclear fuel is impossible to acquire privately.