4 ms·

It's not just a matter of safety of the plans themselves. You need safety against external threats e.g. a nuclear plant can be targeted during war or by terror

It's not just a matter of safety of the plans themselves. You need safety against external threats e.g. a nuclear plant can be targeted during war or by terrorists You need safety around illegal dumping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Illegal_dumping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Illegal_dump... Also, extremely centralized energy production creates political risks (coups, corruption, hiding mismanagement) Nuclear proliferation risk. Investment risk: solar keeps getting cheaper and nuclear has very long ROI that might grow indefinitely

themaninthedark 5y ago
You have the same considerations with coal waste as well. >https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article248745190.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article24874... Look at how many coal ash spills there have been...and those come with nice forever things like mercury.
armada651 5y ago
At least two of those points don't hold when you're talking about existing plants though. Germany already hosts nuclear weapons courtesy of the US, so where's the proliferation risk from nuclear power? And there's nothing worse for ROI than shutting down the plant. For the other points I'd say that I'd rather build solar to replace coal plants first before replacing nuclear plants.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > Germany already hosts nuclear weapons courtesy of the US, so where's the proliferation risk? Proliferation is not a binary 1 or 0. > For the other points I'd say that I'd rather build solar to replace coal plants first before replacing nuclear plants. That's a false dichotomy.
  - armada651 5y ago
    > Proliferation is not a binary 1 or 0. I think climate change poses a bigger existential risk than the nuclear proliferation risk from Germany continuing the nuclear energy production they're already doing. > That's a false dichotomy. Sure we can do both, but the reality is we're not doing both. The last time Germany closed its nuclear plants they were replaced by coal plants.

themaninthedark 5y ago

You have the same considerations with coal waste as well. >https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article248745190.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article24874... Look at how many coal ash spills there have been...and those come with nice forever things like mercury.

armada651 5y ago

At least two of those points don't hold when you're talking about existing plants though. Germany already hosts nuclear weapons courtesy of the US, so where's the proliferation risk from nuclear power? And there's nothing worse for ROI than shutting down the plant. For the other points I'd say that I'd rather build solar to replace coal plants first before replacing nuclear plants.

goodpoint 5y ago
> Germany already hosts nuclear weapons courtesy of the US, so where's the proliferation risk? Proliferation is not a binary 1 or 0. > For the other points I'd say that I'd rather build solar to replace coal plants first before replacing nuclear plants. That's a false dichotomy.
- armada651 5y ago
  > Proliferation is not a binary 1 or 0. I think climate change poses a bigger existential risk than the nuclear proliferation risk from Germany continuing the nuclear energy production they're already doing. > That's a false dichotomy. Sure we can do both, but the reality is we're not doing both. The last time Germany closed its nuclear plants they were replaced by coal plants.