73 ms·

Nuclear isn’t safe. Without active management any passive safety system has a time limit before failure. Fail safe deigns are possible. Develop the technology t

Nuclear isn’t safe. Without active management any passive safety system has a time limit before failure. Fail safe deigns are possible. Develop the technology to build those economically and I’ll support nuclear.

belorn 5y ago
Will you stop using energy produced by fossil fuels until then? The article kind of describe the lack of urgency that world war 2 provided, and fossil fuels could be the missing trigger. Operate the energy grid we got now without using unsafe fossil fuels that pollute the environment, causing max extinction, floods, famine, displacement and general mayhem on the planet. Forced to be without fossil fuels, maybe nuclear deserve a second look. It is distinctly safer for human and the world in general compared to fossil fuels. You can't really get a more unsafe system than releasing the toxic waste into the air, and even if nuclear plant did that it would still be likely safer than coal. Per energy produced, coal plants create more radioactive waste than nuclear, and they just release it into the air.
- trixie_ 5y ago
  A coal plant does not require active management to prevent the city it is located near from becoming uninhabitable. A nuclear plant does. It is possible to build failsafe reactors, but it requires R&D and investment. I’ll support that, but not the current antiquated designs.
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    And coal plants do not require an accident to make cities that are located on the other side of the planet uninhabitable.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Coal plants release their radioactive and toxic material in the air, causing cancers and lung issues for people living around them. I call that uninhabitable and would for sure not want to live there. There are people who are desperate, that are too poor to have an alternative, who get forced to live there. Coal power would had been banned a long time ago if it wasn't so cheap and provide energy in such a quick and incremental way. We should strive for safe energy, but that won't happen if we continue to ignore the elephant in the room. Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground, the ongoing pollution stopped, and recognition of the the human deaths caused from our use of fossil fuels. At that point we can define what "safe" energy means, and pay the cost and consequences of such regulations. If we however continue with fossil fuel, any such distinction is meaningless because we aren't applying it to the the existing energy grid. The only coal plant following the strict safety requirement of a nuclear plant is one not producing any power.
    - trixie_ 5y ago
      You’re really stretching the meaning of uninhabitable huh? It’s funny when people start changing the definition of words to hold on their viewpoint. The fact is all nuclear plants are in a state of meltdown without active management, passive safeguards only last so long per plant. Most of the world’s population and countries are not at a technological level to operate a nuclear plant safely and responsibly. The world is already filled with enough shoddy nuclear plants. So replacing fossil fuel with nuclear at this time is a no-go, sorry.
      - belorn 5y ago
        In the US, would you volunteer to live in an area with 59% higher risk of lung cancer if you are male or 85% higher risk if you are female? Are you willing to have family members or relatives living in such areas? This is the average result of people living around coal power plants. If you are unlucky enough to live near coal ash waste ponds, then there is as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from drinking water contaminated by arsenic. It is estimated that over a million people die as a result of coal power plants. Chernobyl, the world worst nuclear accident, killed an estimated amount of 25,000 to 50,000 people through cancer. That is less than 5% of the total amount of people who die of lung cancer caused by coal ash. 5%! While I have not seen people compare it, it is possible that it is actually safer to have been living next to a nuclear accident than living next coal ash waste bond. That is my definition for uninhabitable. What is yours?
        trixie_ 5y ago
        Pro tip: If your post asks if I would live somewhere that lots of people already live, that’s a clue the place is habitable. Maybe not to your standards, but you don’t define words. Really blows my mind you’re confusing something like a ‘no entry zone’ where people had to abandon their homes with areas near a coal plant.
        belorn 5y ago
        It is true that a lot of people don't seem to care if millions of poor people die, but will go to great length for a rare occurrence that doesn't kill a lot of people. That may just be how our culture works, but we should strive to do be better than that. Humans are flawed when it comes to understanding risk but we have science as a tool to fight it. I understand why people do not want to recognize the harm of fossil fuels. It is cheap and it enable (some) people to live a richer life. It doesn't make it any less toxic. Isn't saving lives the important thing here?

belorn 5y ago

Will you stop using energy produced by fossil fuels until then? The article kind of describe the lack of urgency that world war 2 provided, and fossil fuels could be the missing trigger. Operate the energy grid we got now without using unsafe fossil fuels that pollute the environment, causing max extinction, floods, famine, displacement and general mayhem on the planet. Forced to be without fossil fuels, maybe nuclear deserve a second look. It is distinctly safer for human and the world in general compared to fossil fuels. You can't really get a more unsafe system than releasing the toxic waste into the air, and even if nuclear plant did that it would still be likely safer than coal. Per energy produced, coal plants create more radioactive waste than nuclear, and they just release it into the air.

trixie_ 5y ago
A coal plant does not require active management to prevent the city it is located near from becoming uninhabitable. A nuclear plant does. It is possible to build failsafe reactors, but it requires R&D and investment. I’ll support that, but not the current antiquated designs.
- gizmo686 5y ago
  And coal plants do not require an accident to make cities that are located on the other side of the planet uninhabitable.
- belorn 5y ago
  Coal plants release their radioactive and toxic material in the air, causing cancers and lung issues for people living around them. I call that uninhabitable and would for sure not want to live there. There are people who are desperate, that are too poor to have an alternative, who get forced to live there. Coal power would had been banned a long time ago if it wasn't so cheap and provide energy in such a quick and incremental way. We should strive for safe energy, but that won't happen if we continue to ignore the elephant in the room. Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground, the ongoing pollution stopped, and recognition of the the human deaths caused from our use of fossil fuels. At that point we can define what "safe" energy means, and pay the cost and consequences of such regulations. If we however continue with fossil fuel, any such distinction is meaningless because we aren't applying it to the the existing energy grid. The only coal plant following the strict safety requirement of a nuclear plant is one not producing any power.
  - trixie_ 5y ago
    You’re really stretching the meaning of uninhabitable huh? It’s funny when people start changing the definition of words to hold on their viewpoint. The fact is all nuclear plants are in a state of meltdown without active management, passive safeguards only last so long per plant. Most of the world’s population and countries are not at a technological level to operate a nuclear plant safely and responsibly. The world is already filled with enough shoddy nuclear plants. So replacing fossil fuel with nuclear at this time is a no-go, sorry.
    - belorn 5y ago
      In the US, would you volunteer to live in an area with 59% higher risk of lung cancer if you are male or 85% higher risk if you are female? Are you willing to have family members or relatives living in such areas? This is the average result of people living around coal power plants. If you are unlucky enough to live near coal ash waste ponds, then there is as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from drinking water contaminated by arsenic. It is estimated that over a million people die as a result of coal power plants. Chernobyl, the world worst nuclear accident, killed an estimated amount of 25,000 to 50,000 people through cancer. That is less than 5% of the total amount of people who die of lung cancer caused by coal ash. 5%! While I have not seen people compare it, it is possible that it is actually safer to have been living next to a nuclear accident than living next coal ash waste bond. That is my definition for uninhabitable. What is yours?
      - trixie_ 5y ago
        Pro tip: If your post asks if I would live somewhere that lots of people already live, that’s a clue the place is habitable. Maybe not to your standards, but you don’t define words. Really blows my mind you’re confusing something like a ‘no entry zone’ where people had to abandon their homes with areas near a coal plant.
        belorn 5y ago
        It is true that a lot of people don't seem to care if millions of poor people die, but will go to great length for a rare occurrence that doesn't kill a lot of people. That may just be how our culture works, but we should strive to do be better than that. Humans are flawed when it comes to understanding risk but we have science as a tool to fight it. I understand why people do not want to recognize the harm of fossil fuels. It is cheap and it enable (some) people to live a richer life. It doesn't make it any less toxic. Isn't saving lives the important thing here?