4 ms·

Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has

Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues in the first 30 years? Moreover, why has France which hasn't had a significant antinuclear movement ever solved any of the issues?

belorn 4y ago
The storage problem has yet to be solved for the same reason why any nation has yet to solve the issue of pollution from fossil fuels. It cost money and any increase in energy costs is detrimental to growth. The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.
- worik 4y ago
  No. The storage problem has not been solved because we do not have the technology. There is no evidence that the technology os possible. The long term waste (not much in quantity, but it does mount up. A few million litres at the moment I believe ??) has to be stored for periods of time on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. There is no way we can write a warning sign that we know can be read for that long. We cannot build a structure that will last that long. There are no places on this planet that we can be sure are stable for that long. It is making future generations pay for our current consumption.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    >It is making future generations pay for our current consumption. Okay, then in places where wind/solar/storage aren't up to snuff we'll just keep burning coal.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
philwelch 4y ago
The US had a solution at Yucca Mountain, except the solution has been legally and politically sabotaged by activists.
WillPostForFood 4y ago
A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. That anti-nuclear movement was huge in the 1970s, and was successful in many states and countries at creating major roadblocks to new power plants. Their success in California back then is big reason why the last plants are going offline now, and there haven't been any new plants since Diablo Canyon, which was started in the 1960s. To say that anti-nuclear groups weren't influential until the 21st century is absurd.
BurningFrog 4y ago
> So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues The technical issues are solved. The political issue is that the "green lobby" will not accept any nuclear waste storage solution.
ethbr0 4y ago
> A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. O_o There's been a significant and influential anti-nuclear movement for the last 60 years...

belorn 4y ago

The storage problem has yet to be solved for the same reason why any nation has yet to solve the issue of pollution from fossil fuels. It cost money and any increase in energy costs is detrimental to growth. The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.

worik 4y ago
No. The storage problem has not been solved because we do not have the technology. There is no evidence that the technology os possible. The long term waste (not much in quantity, but it does mount up. A few million litres at the moment I believe ??) has to be stored for periods of time on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. There is no way we can write a warning sign that we know can be read for that long. We cannot build a structure that will last that long. There are no places on this planet that we can be sure are stable for that long. It is making future generations pay for our current consumption.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  >It is making future generations pay for our current consumption. Okay, then in places where wind/solar/storage aren't up to snuff we'll just keep burning coal.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

philwelch 4y ago

The US had a solution at Yucca Mountain, except the solution has been legally and politically sabotaged by activists.

WillPostForFood 4y ago

A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. That anti-nuclear movement was huge in the 1970s, and was successful in many states and countries at creating major roadblocks to new power plants. Their success in California back then is big reason why the last plants are going offline now, and there haven't been any new plants since Diablo Canyon, which was started in the 1960s. To say that anti-nuclear groups weren't influential until the 21st century is absurd.

BurningFrog 4y ago

> So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues The technical issues are solved. The political issue is that the "green lobby" will not accept any nuclear waste storage solution.

ethbr0 4y ago

> A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. O_o There's been a significant and influential anti-nuclear movement for the last 60 years...