5 ms·

> The fear-mongering was absolutely not justified given that we will soon be facing climate crises that will make Chernobyl and Fukushima seem miniscule. But i

by nuerow 5y ago

> The fear-mongering was absolutely not justified given that we will soon be facing climate crises that will make Chernobyl and Fukushima seem miniscule. But isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? I mean, Germany right now has about half it's power being generated from renewable energy sources, and wind alone provides over twice the energy that nuclear does. Why do nuclear power proponents insist in pushing the false idea that's either Nuclear or nothing?

eldaisfish 5y ago
the solution is whatever we have that works today. That is currently nuclear, hydro plus newer technologies. Rejecting one of those - the most critical component in my opinion - due to decades of fear mongering is actively making the problem worse. You have framed the problem as a binary choice which it is not. Only around 40% of Germany electrical energy comes from renewable resources - roughly the same as coal and natural gas.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > the solution is whatever we have that works today. As Germany showed the world, renewables are quite capable of doing the heavy lifting regarding a nation's energy needs, particularly while phasing out nuclear. The Fukushima disaster is still fresh in our collective memory, as is the exclusion zone around the plant that is comprised of a 20km radius around the Fukushima plant. It's disingenuous to depict nuclear as a desirable option, of even an acceptable onr, given it's track record and very long-lasting consequences.
dkarl 5y ago
> either Nuclear or nothing I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. > isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? That's a false dilemma you've brought from somewhere else, not from this discussion, but the reason "either nuclear or climate disaster" is nonsensical is because global warming is happening already. The extent to which it happens will depend on how fast we can reduce our carbon emissions. If adding nuclear power into the mix helps us act faster and decrease the amount of warming that we ultimately experience, then we have to weigh that benefit against the risks. There's a taboo against weighing nuclear risk against any other kind of risk, but that is a relic of a different time when nuclear accidents were the worst thing we could imagine. Nuclear isn't the scariest monster under the bed anymore. Global warming is going to result in global human suffering on a grand scale. We have to compare.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. You're literally posting in a thread whose leading post is "Nuclear power is the only hope to stop climate change." I understand that this discussion was sparked by an article on nuclear power PR efforts, but framing nuclear as the only alternative to fossil fuels and the saviour, specially as all tradeoffs are brushed under the rug, doesn't sound like a honest discussion.

by nuerow 5y ago

eldaisfish 5y ago

the solution is whatever we have that works today. That is currently nuclear, hydro plus newer technologies. Rejecting one of those - the most critical component in my opinion - due to decades of fear mongering is actively making the problem worse. You have framed the problem as a binary choice which it is not. Only around 40% of Germany electrical energy comes from renewable resources - roughly the same as coal and natural gas.

nuerow 5y ago
> the solution is whatever we have that works today. As Germany showed the world, renewables are quite capable of doing the heavy lifting regarding a nation's energy needs, particularly while phasing out nuclear. The Fukushima disaster is still fresh in our collective memory, as is the exclusion zone around the plant that is comprised of a 20km radius around the Fukushima plant. It's disingenuous to depict nuclear as a desirable option, of even an acceptable onr, given it's track record and very long-lasting consequences.

dkarl 5y ago

> either Nuclear or nothing I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. > isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? That's a false dilemma you've brought from somewhere else, not from this discussion, but the reason "either nuclear or climate disaster" is nonsensical is because global warming is happening already. The extent to which it happens will depend on how fast we can reduce our carbon emissions. If adding nuclear power into the mix helps us act faster and decrease the amount of warming that we ultimately experience, then we have to weigh that benefit against the risks. There's a taboo against weighing nuclear risk against any other kind of risk, but that is a relic of a different time when nuclear accidents were the worst thing we could imagine. Nuclear isn't the scariest monster under the bed anymore. Global warming is going to result in global human suffering on a grand scale. We have to compare.

nuerow 5y ago
> I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. You're literally posting in a thread whose leading post is "Nuclear power is the only hope to stop climate change." I understand that this discussion was sparked by an article on nuclear power PR efforts, but framing nuclear as the only alternative to fossil fuels and the saviour, specially as all tradeoffs are brushed under the rug, doesn't sound like a honest discussion.