4 ms·

I don’t think anyone is afraid of nuclear power, I mean, some people are but no one serious. What anti nuclear movements in my country fear isn’t the technolog

by moksly 5y ago

I don’t think anyone is afraid of nuclear power, I mean, some people are but no one serious. What anti nuclear movements in my country fear isn’t the technology but rather the people who have to maintain it. I’m not sure that last part can be easily fixed.

allendoerfer 5y ago
Also the million year commitment to storing trash. Globally building nuclear power plants will be too slow to solve climate change. We still should keep it to solve future problems. Like conquering the universe and stuff.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  There's a fine garbage dump in the centre of the solar system.
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    No, the sun isn't viable at all for waste. It'd take an unreasonable amount of fuel for that, https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=43694&t=launching-a-rocket-to-the-sun https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=43694&t=l... Along with that, we have enough geographically stable regions for long enough storage.
    - bottled_poe 5y ago
      The premise is probably true, but that article measures the cost in dollars, not energy units. Im not yet convinced it’s a net negative.
- Akronymus 5y ago
  > million year commitment to storing trash. Hardly. Most of it decays quite fast. (think tens of years to get below backround radioactivity) While there is some extremely long lived radioactive waste, it is, quite frankly, miniscule in the amount.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Radioactive stuff is kinda interesting. Longer it is active less it produces radiation, more it produces faster it breaks down... Ofc, it is not that clear cut as power of radiation differs. It is just that I wouldn't be too worried about properly stabilised long lived waste. Just like I'm not too worried about natural uranium...
- horns4lyfe 5y ago
  As opposed to the million year commitment of having an ever-growing number of giant metal windmills mar the landscape?
dathinab 5y ago
> I don’t think anyone is afraid of nuclear power, I mean, some people are but no one serious. People are afraid of it, I have spoken with multiple people which are fundamentally/seriously afraid of nuclear power. Also most idk. 5 50+ years old people (i.e. majority of people with power) in the Green German party (and other parties) have spend their "Jung political years" by being obsessed with stopping Nuclear power, try convincing them that maybe we need it. (Or try make them accept that their movement had been partially financed and instrumentalized by eastern Germany, or that most problems of nuclear wast storage in the area which once was western Germany are 100% fault of the Politician of the time choosing a known to be bad mine for petty reasons).
lordnacho 5y ago
We're from the same country, so I know a bit about it. There was always a fear of contamination, and the Three-Mile-Island accident in the US didn't help. This was before Chernobyl. But of course it's worth remembering why everyone thought that might be such a big problem: there was a siren each Wednesday reminding people that we're in a Cold War, and if it turns hot there's a nuke somewhere with "Copenhagen" written in Cyrillic. So people understood that nuclear fallout is not nice. Plus Denmark ain't big, so basically if something were to happen the whole country could be radioactive. For the same reason, many Danes took issue with the Swedes building a nuclear plant that you can still see from Copenhagen. The OOA (the organization that led the anti-nuclear movement) made a nice logo with a smiling sun and a "Nuclear Power? No Thanks" message that got thousands of people on the street to protest. Some of the people maintained that if we only could solve what to do about the waste, they'd be fine with it. Often the debate has been "if the tech were better I'd be for it". I'm not sure this is a reasonable decision. Tech gets better with experience, and you don't build experience by not engaging. Much like mini-mills from Clayton Christensen, often the tech that wins looks crappy and niche when it starts.

by moksly 5y ago

allendoerfer 5y ago

Also the million year commitment to storing trash. Globally building nuclear power plants will be too slow to solve climate change. We still should keep it to solve future problems. Like conquering the universe and stuff.

bottled_poe 5y ago
There's a fine garbage dump in the centre of the solar system.
- Akronymus 5y ago
  No, the sun isn't viable at all for waste. It'd take an unreasonable amount of fuel for that, https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=43694&t=launching-a-rocket-to-the-sun https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=43694&t=l... Along with that, we have enough geographically stable regions for long enough storage.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    The premise is probably true, but that article measures the cost in dollars, not energy units. Im not yet convinced it’s a net negative.
Akronymus 5y ago
> million year commitment to storing trash. Hardly. Most of it decays quite fast. (think tens of years to get below backround radioactivity) While there is some extremely long lived radioactive waste, it is, quite frankly, miniscule in the amount.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Radioactive stuff is kinda interesting. Longer it is active less it produces radiation, more it produces faster it breaks down... Ofc, it is not that clear cut as power of radiation differs. It is just that I wouldn't be too worried about properly stabilised long lived waste. Just like I'm not too worried about natural uranium...
horns4lyfe 5y ago
As opposed to the million year commitment of having an ever-growing number of giant metal windmills mar the landscape?

dathinab 5y ago

> I don’t think anyone is afraid of nuclear power, I mean, some people are but no one serious. People are afraid of it, I have spoken with multiple people which are fundamentally/seriously afraid of nuclear power. Also most idk. 5 50+ years old people (i.e. majority of people with power) in the Green German party (and other parties) have spend their "Jung political years" by being obsessed with stopping Nuclear power, try convincing them that maybe we need it. (Or try make them accept that their movement had been partially financed and instrumentalized by eastern Germany, or that most problems of nuclear wast storage in the area which once was western Germany are 100% fault of the Politician of the time choosing a known to be bad mine for petty reasons).

lordnacho 5y ago

We're from the same country, so I know a bit about it. There was always a fear of contamination, and the Three-Mile-Island accident in the US didn't help. This was before Chernobyl. But of course it's worth remembering why everyone thought that might be such a big problem: there was a siren each Wednesday reminding people that we're in a Cold War, and if it turns hot there's a nuke somewhere with "Copenhagen" written in Cyrillic. So people understood that nuclear fallout is not nice. Plus Denmark ain't big, so basically if something were to happen the whole country could be radioactive. For the same reason, many Danes took issue with the Swedes building a nuclear plant that you can still see from Copenhagen. The OOA (the organization that led the anti-nuclear movement) made a nice logo with a smiling sun and a "Nuclear Power? No Thanks" message that got thousands of people on the street to protest. Some of the people maintained that if we only could solve what to do about the waste, they'd be fine with it. Often the debate has been "if the tech were better I'd be for it". I'm not sure this is a reasonable decision. Tech gets better with experience, and you don't build experience by not engaging. Much like mini-mills from Clayton Christensen, often the tech that wins looks crappy and niche when it starts.