4 ms·

We wouldn’t have a climate change problem today if the public wasn’t tricked into fearing nuclear power.

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• orwin 5y ago
  Sorry, this doesn't pass the smell detector. The main reason why nuclear isn't a thing except in communist countries (or countries with a big centralized state power), is that scaled nuclear require central planning. You really can't expect private operators to run nuclear, because the cost of the fuel is actually 0.01% of the operating cost, and the most efficient way of running a nuclear reactor is full power.
  • pjerem 5y ago
    I think you are being downvoted because of the word « communist » which is exaggerating. But anyway there is some truth in what you say but I’ll would rephrase « centralized power » as « political will + state controlled company ». You probably need this to be operated by a state controlled company because as much as I trust nuclear power, I’d never trust plants managed with a profit driven company. There must be unlimited warranties in case things goes wrong. But that is far from communism. You just can’t allow scenarios such as the power plant going bankrupt while being operated or maintenance costs being reduced to pay bonuses. A lot of liberal countries have state controlled electricity providers. In France we even have multiple energy companies but just one is state controlled.
  • timonoko 5y ago
    There was a movie about Russian arctic base, where the hero for some reason had to spend the night outside and warm himself with discarded portable nuclear plant. When he manages to get back inside first thing he was looking was iodine tablets. Looked very handy thing that nuclear hand warmer. Like big cabin stove, which runs for ever and needs no fuel.
• tedsanders 5y ago
  Your statement is plainly untrue and I don't know why you posted it. Electricity is a minority of GHG emissions (<25%). Even if electricity became 100% GHG-free, and even if you converted transportation and heating to electricity, you still have plenty of other GHG sources like agricultural, smelting, etc. Just because nuclear power has been unfairly maligned doesn't mean it would unilaterally solve our climate problems. Beware mood affiliation when posting short pithy comments. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_technical-summary.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... (see page 44)
  • seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    With EVs, nuclear could solve a lot more of our energy mix. Maybe EV tech would have been more developed earlier if we had cheaper electricity. But that still ignores the huge capital costs of building a nuclear power plant, not to mention the liability insurance that has to be provided by the government.
  • HPsquared 5y ago
    In a world of cheap nuclear electricity, more possibilities would open up in these other areas like smelting etc. It would be possible to have a higher carbon tax, use more electricity-derived heat for industrial processes (even just electrolyze and burn hydrogen if needed). Farming is a tricky one but again, with cheap electricity things like hydroponics become more feasible. A lot of things are physically possible but simply ruled out by the economics of energy cost.
  • vimy 5y ago
    40 years of unnecessary coal and gas emissions adds up.