3 ms·

> There are proven historical risks to commercialized nuclear power that aren't just fantasies made up by Wakefield. There are proven risks to vaccines too. Ho

by Zababa 5y ago

> There are proven historical risks to commercialized nuclear power that aren't just fantasies made up by Wakefield. There are proven risks to vaccines too. How many people die each year because anti-nuclear people slowed or stopped the adoption of nuclear power? Air pollution kills, a lot. These people have blood on their hands.

cycomanic 5y ago
Ah come on, the reason there is not more nuclear in most countries has nothing to do with the anti-nuclear lobby, but is simple economics. It's hilarious that somehow anti-nuclear groups are supposed to have so much more lobbying power than some of the largest corporations in the world, that's almost on the same level as anti-climate change conspiracy theory groups who say that this is all made up because some scientists want to get grant money.
- blitzar 5y ago
  I see your comment and raise you with Germany. > It's hilarious that somehow anti-nuclear groups are supposed to have so much more lobbying power than some of the largest corporations in the world It turns out that anti nuke means pro gas ... now let me get the abacus out and see which lobbying group is bigger - pro nuke vs gas+oil+coal+greens+nimbys. Answers on the back of a postcard please.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    So what Germany, even in Germany the nuclear reactors were extended way beyond their original expected lifetimes. You might want to explain why France is not building nuclear reactors left right and center. There's hardly any country that is more pro-nuclear, and their nuclear energy production is highly subsidized and they are replacing nuclear with renewable (look at the chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France) Also the assertion behind the OP was that nuclear is replaced with coal/fossil, that is not the case in Germany see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany_electricity_production.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#... It's renewables which have taken over from both fossil and nuclear.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany's_electricity_generation_by_major_fuel,_energy_sources_and_share_of_electricity_generation_by_fuel,_energy_source,_from_2000_through_2017_(47958295396).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:... And left beautiful clean coal the far and away leading source of energy in germany with a nice uptrend in gas, presumably replacing the removed nuclear and diminishing coal capacity. Why are france not building any more? Why would they need to? 70% comes from nuclear they dont need to get that to 100%, especially as you point out, renewables are really coming of age. They did the hard work, didnt just lean into setting stuff on fire for their energy needs and are rightly yielding the rewards from this.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        That's not even the full picture, as Germany burns lots of lignite, which is even worse.
geysersam 5y ago
Perhaps. Or, further proliferation of nuclear energy would have lead to more Chernobyl style accidents. Not to mention the weapons aspect. Nuclear is also expensive, it could never have significantly outcompeted coal in India and China anyway even if it had faced less resistance.
- Zababa 5y ago
  Chernobyl killed less people than air pollution due to coal does in Europe in a year. The difference is that Chernobyl is a big, visible event, while coal plants in Germany and Poland are a slow poison, and people don't notice slow poisons.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Nuclear is in large part so expensive due to overregulation lobbied by anti-nuclear groups and NIMBY sentiment generated by anti-nuclear fear mongering. All tech is expensive and dangerous initially, becoming cheap and safe with increased availability and competition in the market place. See aeronautics. In the case of nuclear this process was abruptly halted by green activism.

by Zababa 5y ago

cycomanic 5y ago

Ah come on, the reason there is not more nuclear in most countries has nothing to do with the anti-nuclear lobby, but is simple economics. It's hilarious that somehow anti-nuclear groups are supposed to have so much more lobbying power than some of the largest corporations in the world, that's almost on the same level as anti-climate change conspiracy theory groups who say that this is all made up because some scientists want to get grant money.

blitzar 5y ago
I see your comment and raise you with Germany. > It's hilarious that somehow anti-nuclear groups are supposed to have so much more lobbying power than some of the largest corporations in the world It turns out that anti nuke means pro gas ... now let me get the abacus out and see which lobbying group is bigger - pro nuke vs gas+oil+coal+greens+nimbys. Answers on the back of a postcard please.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  So what Germany, even in Germany the nuclear reactors were extended way beyond their original expected lifetimes. You might want to explain why France is not building nuclear reactors left right and center. There's hardly any country that is more pro-nuclear, and their nuclear energy production is highly subsidized and they are replacing nuclear with renewable (look at the chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France) Also the assertion behind the OP was that nuclear is replaced with coal/fossil, that is not the case in Germany see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany_electricity_production.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#... It's renewables which have taken over from both fossil and nuclear.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany's_electricity_generation_by_major_fuel,_energy_sources_and_share_of_electricity_generation_by_fuel,_energy_source,_from_2000_through_2017_(47958295396).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:... And left beautiful clean coal the far and away leading source of energy in germany with a nice uptrend in gas, presumably replacing the removed nuclear and diminishing coal capacity. Why are france not building any more? Why would they need to? 70% comes from nuclear they dont need to get that to 100%, especially as you point out, renewables are really coming of age. They did the hard work, didnt just lean into setting stuff on fire for their energy needs and are rightly yielding the rewards from this.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      That's not even the full picture, as Germany burns lots of lignite, which is even worse.

geysersam 5y ago

Perhaps. Or, further proliferation of nuclear energy would have lead to more Chernobyl style accidents. Not to mention the weapons aspect. Nuclear is also expensive, it could never have significantly outcompeted coal in India and China anyway even if it had faced less resistance.

Zababa 5y ago
Chernobyl killed less people than air pollution due to coal does in Europe in a year. The difference is that Chernobyl is a big, visible event, while coal plants in Germany and Poland are a slow poison, and people don't notice slow poisons.
nickpp 5y ago
Nuclear is in large part so expensive due to overregulation lobbied by anti-nuclear groups and NIMBY sentiment generated by anti-nuclear fear mongering. All tech is expensive and dangerous initially, becoming cheap and safe with increased availability and competition in the market place. See aeronautics. In the case of nuclear this process was abruptly halted by green activism.