3 ms·

The risks of nuclear energy is far more favourable than global warming. Global warming effects are global, non-linear and there are still many unknowns, which

by enaaem 5y ago

The risks of nuclear energy is far more favourable than global warming. Global warming effects are global, non-linear and there are still many unknowns, which makes it more risky. Nuclear risks are local and the harm is well known. Also nuclear energy is anti-fragile (more disasters means saver plants). I believe we are far too cautious with building new nuclear plants. Not because I think that nuclear energy is not dangerous, but I believe global warming is a far greater risk.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago
It's not an "or" proposition. Nuclear energy should not be our only source of energy for other reasons like resiliance (diversity in sources make a society more robust), power balance (you don't want one type of industry to have it all) and long term cost opportunity (some energy may prove cheaper later if we also develop them). And since we are using nuclear energy, we engage in this risk, which we should mitigate given the magnitude of it. Ignoring it is not rational. Opposing the risk of a nuclear accident to globalm warming is a false dichotomie. Like stating we don't spend money on fighting covid because cancer is more deadly, more likely, and need all the money we have.
- enaaem 5y ago
  I am not necessarily pro nuclear. But due to catastrophic risk, nuclear should be considered in a diversified energy portfolio. This can be different from region to region. I am anti-anti-nuclear. Of course we should not ignore the risks of nuclear. But my point is that there is no 100% guarantee that no accidents will ever happen. But considering the problems we are facing, the risk characteristics of nuclear are favourable to the problem we are solving.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    Yes. In fact, if one if being cold hearted, you can say that it could be worth it if we limit the consequences to only "x" accidents with "y" victims. After all, climate change kills a lot of people, we only have to kill less. But the problem here is that climate change is not shocking to people. But a nuclear accident would be. In fact, 2 of the 3 nuclear disasters we had are burnt in the collective memory for ever. So strong action to prevent such accidents are also needed as a communication measure, to reasure the population. Given you are "anti-anti-nuclear", I think it's a good step to reduce the "anti-nuclear" sentiment.
    - enaaem 5y ago
      There is already an incredible amount of effort done to prevent accidents. The problem nuclear faces is similar to the problem COVID vaccines face: No scientist or engineer with integrity can guarantee 100% safety. Should we tell the public simple messages like: "Trust me dude, it is super super super safe!", or should we tell the public a nuanced story of calculated risks? I don't know whether the last strategy will work, but the first strategy has failed both nuclear and COVID vaccination. In my country we are in a lock down again, because too few people are vaccinated.

by enaaem 5y ago

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

It's not an "or" proposition. Nuclear energy should not be our only source of energy for other reasons like resiliance (diversity in sources make a society more robust), power balance (you don't want one type of industry to have it all) and long term cost opportunity (some energy may prove cheaper later if we also develop them). And since we are using nuclear energy, we engage in this risk, which we should mitigate given the magnitude of it. Ignoring it is not rational. Opposing the risk of a nuclear accident to globalm warming is a false dichotomie. Like stating we don't spend money on fighting covid because cancer is more deadly, more likely, and need all the money we have.

enaaem 5y ago
I am not necessarily pro nuclear. But due to catastrophic risk, nuclear should be considered in a diversified energy portfolio. This can be different from region to region. I am anti-anti-nuclear. Of course we should not ignore the risks of nuclear. But my point is that there is no 100% guarantee that no accidents will ever happen. But considering the problems we are facing, the risk characteristics of nuclear are favourable to the problem we are solving.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  Yes. In fact, if one if being cold hearted, you can say that it could be worth it if we limit the consequences to only "x" accidents with "y" victims. After all, climate change kills a lot of people, we only have to kill less. But the problem here is that climate change is not shocking to people. But a nuclear accident would be. In fact, 2 of the 3 nuclear disasters we had are burnt in the collective memory for ever. So strong action to prevent such accidents are also needed as a communication measure, to reasure the population. Given you are "anti-anti-nuclear", I think it's a good step to reduce the "anti-nuclear" sentiment.
  - enaaem 5y ago
    There is already an incredible amount of effort done to prevent accidents. The problem nuclear faces is similar to the problem COVID vaccines face: No scientist or engineer with integrity can guarantee 100% safety. Should we tell the public simple messages like: "Trust me dude, it is super super super safe!", or should we tell the public a nuanced story of calculated risks? I don't know whether the last strategy will work, but the first strategy has failed both nuclear and COVID vaccination. In my country we are in a lock down again, because too few people are vaccinated.