6 ms·
I am a fan of nuclear, though I do find some truth in the arguement that it's simply too expensive. Until there are GW scale batteries in operation (that aren't
by VBprogrammer 5y ago
I am a fan of nuclear, though I do find some truth in the arguement that it's simply too expensive. Until there are GW scale batteries in operation (that aren't highly topography dependant) it's definitely worth gambling on some new investment in Nuclear, at least maintaining the current nuclear component of our power generation mix for the midterm.
- CodeGlitch 5y agoHow much of that cost is associated with the extreme safety measures that have to be put in place? The green movement has instilled the idea that nuclear power is dangerous, which means the general public won't accept anything but the extreme safety measures.
- turbinerneiter 5y agoIf you act like the dangers or nuclear power are made up and safety measures not needed you are really, really hurting the cause.
- varajelle 5y agoI can't answer for the parent, but the fallacy I often hear is that it is too expensive *and* dangerous. But it is just taking the same argument twice. Nuclear in Japan before Fukushima was in fact quite cheap if I'm not mistaken. New reactor are expensive but shouldn't be dangerous anymore.
- CodeGlitch 5y agoI suppose I should have stressed "risk compared to other forms of power generation with similar outputs". All forms of power generation come with risk.
- dane-pgp 5y agoAsk the people of Fukushima if they think the safety measures for nuclear power stations are "extreme".
- tkgally 5y agoAlso the people formerly of Fukushima. Many, perhaps most, of those who had to leave will never return.
- nickpp 5y agoAlso ask the countless dead from the hydrocarbon burning pollution if they think this alternative is so much safer.
- throw0101a 5y ago122K / 200K have returned per this 2019 article: > Radiation from the fuming plant spread over tile-roofed towns and rice paddies across an area the size of Connecticut. The meltdown 150 miles north of Tokyo drove more than 200,000 people out of the region. Most believed they were fleeing for their lives. Now, almost eight years after the accident, the government has lifted most evacuation orders. Nearly 122,000 people have been allowed to return to communities where weeds have overtaken parking lots. * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-residents-return-despite-radiation/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-residen...
- CodeGlitch 5y agoYou mean the same Fukushima nuclear disaster whereby there's 1 confirmed death (from cancer)? Sounds like a good advert for nuclear IMHO.
- timeon 5y agoThere is no need to move the goal post. He and you were talking about 'safety measures'.
- RealityVoid 5y agoEvery time Fukushima is brought up, I am baffled how everyone remembers the nuclear incident, but not the many thousands of people that died from the tsunami. And ye, people are always "Let's not build nuclear" not "let's not build stuff next to the shore" - one is deemed an acceptable risk, the other is not. Why?
- timeon 5y ago> The green movement has instilled the idea I do not think this narrative is reasonable because almost no one ever cared about 'green movement'.
- ssijak 5y agoBack of the napkin calculation says that if theoretically the US diverted 2 years of its military budget to nuclear power plants it could make enough modern nuclear power plants to get 70% of its needed power from those nuclear plants. But it seems to that maintaining 800 bases around the world and dropping bombs far away is less expensive judging by priorities where the money is spent.
- q1w2 5y agoThe cost is high due to ancient regulatory requirements and political opposition to storage facilities. If political will existed, reactors could be build at one tenth the current cost. We need to re-open the Nevada storage facility and pass a law banning excessive court cases against plant building.