3 ms·
It fizzled due to FUD. Existing plants work and are defensible. The waste can be stored safely. In emerging economies new designs can be used, but they'll prob
by R0b0t1 5y ago
It fizzled due to FUD. Existing plants work and are defensible. The waste can be stored safely.
In emerging economies new designs can be used, but they'll probably have to be trialed in a developed economy. You could also pursue economic policy that has developing economies fund the research instead of letting them expect handouts.
- wolverine876 5y ago> It fizzled due to FUD. You're saying there were no actual, serious problems with nuclear plants? > Existing plants work and are defensible. That's survivorship bias to a degree: Te plants that work and are defensible are the plants you see. It's also a bias of sunk costs: The surviving plants could have been way over-budget and late, but it's still worth operating them.
- vkou 5y ago> You're saying there were no actual, serious problems with nuclear plants? Compared to other forms of energy generation, measured in illnesses, injuries, maimings, and deaths, past and plausibly attributed to the future, per KWH? Not really, no.
- wolverine876 5y agoI tire of the 'say something bold and prove me wrong' rhetoric, when people know exactly what's wrong with what they are saying. It doesn't contribute to anyone's understanding, and wastes my time. Hope the rest of your day goes well.
- vkou 5y agoThe realization that industrial processes are dangerous, that power generation is an industrial process, and therefore dangerous, and that the only meaningful way to measure the danger of an industrial process is by comparing it to that of another industrial process should contribute to the understanding of some. Is nuclear power generation dangerous? Yes. Is all power generation dangerous? Yes. How dangerous is nuclear power generation compared to alternatives? Not very. It's pretty accurate to say that nuclear fizzled due to FUD. The conversation ended after the answer to the first question was 'yes'.
- johncolanduoni 5y agoI’d appreciate if you could clarify what’s wrong. Even if both you and your interlocutor understand it, the point has unfortunately gone over my head (and possibly the same for others reading).
- consumer451 5y agoNot OP, but one problem that they mentioned which is "wrong" from an economic point of view is that afaik, there is no way to calculate the total cost of ownership of a nuclear plant. This is due to that fact that there are no viable plans for long term nuclear storage to calculate the cost of. Is this not "wrong" in a very material way?
- johncolanduoni 5y agoThe comment in question only talked about death and injury, not economic costs, so I don’t see how that applies here.
- R0b0t1 5y agoYou're partaking in the "say something bold and prove me wrong" rhetoric, you just like the assumption that nuclear is unsafe more. When acting with imperfect information you should not go to such methods.