7 ms·

Anti-nuke sentiment is the reason we are facing global warming right now. Just stop it.

by towaway15463 4y ago

zackees 4y ago
more_corn 4y ago
No. Centuries long burning of fossil fuels is why we’re facing climate change.
- drewcon 4y ago
  So “burn” uranium instead.
- kleer001 4y ago
  and the reason we burned fossil fuels for the last 70 years is fear of nuclear power
nl 4y ago
This is untrue. 1) Burning fossil fuels is why we are facing global warming right now. 2) Anti-nuclear sentiment is why we aren't living in a nuclear waste right now. Even nuclear advocate's argument that "nuclear plants are much safer now and the accidents that happened at 3 Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima are impossible now" implies that anti-nuclear sentiment was correct in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000s at the very least!
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Gen II 1970s era nuclear reactors are still among the safest forms of energy known to humanity. Anti-nuclear sentiment has only prolonged the reign of particulate and carbon emitting fossil and biofuel. If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally. Fossil/biofuel particulate emissions killing ~8 million people per year is no joke. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution
  - nl 4y ago
    > Gen II 1970s era nuclear reactors are still among the safest forms of energy known to humanity. ... If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally. This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false. Better estimates are hard, but "the Ukrainian government pays benefits to more than 36,000 widows of men who have died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster".[1] There were also at least 200,000 people who had to be relocated. I agree 100% we should get rid of coal ASAP! No dispute there at all. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-kno...
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      > This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false. Actually, it's based on the UNSCEAR number of 4000 deaths including latent cancers. Don't use the Ukraine political numbers. Use the UN panel of scientist numbers. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h...
      - nl 4y ago
        On https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (which I think is the best source) they use 433 deaths from Chernobyl and 2314 from Fukushima. If they used your 4000 number then Nuclear becomes twice as unsafe as solar. (But the point here isn't the number of deaths in the past - because that was moderated by the strong anti-nuclear movements. The risk is higher usage leads to dramatic increases, because deaths are dominated by accidents not constant one-off deaths like from pollution which are more predicable)
        acidburnNSA 4y ago
        > 2314 from Fukushima Woah I did not realize they used that figure. Everyone agrees that there were between 0 and 1 deaths from radiation due to Fukushima (vs between 31 and 4000 radiation deaths at Chernobyl). There were deaths caused by the prolonged evacuation at Fukushima, which must be where this figure comes from.
- xupybd 4y ago
  To your first point: Yes, but if Nuclear plants were more common less fossil fuels would be burnt. Hence anti-nuclear sentiment has led to more climate change. To your second: 3 Mile Island was not an accident that caused significant environmental damage. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx#:~:text=In%201979%20at%20Three%20Mile,background%20levels%20to%20local%20residents https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec.... Chernobyl was a terrible design that should never have been built. Fukushima is an example of the dangers. It was however hit by an earthquake 1 magnitude higher than it was designed for and a Tsunami. Given it's location it should have been designed to handle these possibilities.
  - epgui 4y ago
    I would argue that Fukushima was a pretty good example of how safe nuclear power is. The damage was very well contained, and the evacuation measures caused more harm than the primary danger.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      I'm pretty pro-nuclear, but a couple hundred billion dollars of damages, a couple dozen direct deaths, some people getting maimed, and causing thousands of deaths by displacing a large population is a catastrophe by any stretch. Yes, fossil fuels may be worse per unit of energy generated, but they are never quite this spectacular in a single event.
      - katbyte 4y ago
        All avoided by not building a nuclear power plant on the coast in a subduction zone prone to intense earthquakes and massive tsunamis
        mlyle 4y ago
        Yes, but all accidents (not just nuclear) seem to have simple, stupid, easily-avoided factors in retrospect. I know it's tempting to say "oh, if we just don't do these 4-5 dumb things-- the risk is gone". It's s small risk, but boy the end of the tail in what it costs is pretty dang high.
- strken 4y ago
  In terms of fatalities, we're overly scared of nuclear incidents, and not scared enough of coal power and brownouts. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy You're absolutely correct when you say that less regulated nuclear would have caused more incidents. You may also be correct when you say the risks aren't properly calculated at present. The thing is, that doesn't matter unless they're off by three orders of magnitude. Coal kills so many people through pollution that the world could suffer a Three Mile Island once a year without killing anywhere near as many people as coal does. It is now theoretically possible that solar, wind, and pumped hydro could provide a substantial chunk of global baseload power. We could have gotten there decades ago with nuclear. It's the fault of the green movement that we didn't.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    You are conveniently omitting any form of systemic risk around nuclear.
- Joeri 4y ago
  Even nuclear advocate's argument that "nuclear plants are much safer now and the accidents that happened at 3 Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima are impossible now" implies that anti-nuclear sentiment was correct in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000s at the very least! Every nuclear disaster so far has been unique, and this will remain the case going forward, because the nuclear sector is always defending against yesterday’s failure mode. Nuclear power plants are some of the most complicated machines mankind has ever built. In such a complex design there are too many permutations of failures that can arise to allow for designing away all risk. We need to fundamentally accept this risk and embrace it if we are going to adopt nuclear power on a grander scale. This is a big ask on a psychological level for humanity, and that’s one reason why I think a nuclear upscaling is not going to happen. (The other is high and rising cost of construction, which is the biggest problem facing the nuclear power sector that is on them to solve.)
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  A few more Chernobyl-level incidents could have been worth it if it meant less coal plants.
thrown_22 4y ago
When the last chapter of industrial civilization is written some time in the 2100s the number of people the Greens killed in the name of protecting the environment will make every war, genocide and mass murdering dictator look like amateur hour. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is unfortunate we have made Earth into hell though.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Hi, y’all I’ll take this one for the team. Sorry for generally reducing my resource usage and encouraging others to do so… I guess I’m excited to stop being compared to pol pot or whatever tho.
- kleer001 4y ago
  > the number of people the Greens killed citation needed
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    How does one cite a prediction about the future?

Anti-nuke sentiment is the reason we are facing global warming right now. Just stop it.

zackees 4y ago

more_corn 4y ago

No. Centuries long burning of fossil fuels is why we’re facing climate change.

drewcon 4y ago
So “burn” uranium instead.
kleer001 4y ago
and the reason we burned fossil fuels for the last 70 years is fear of nuclear power

nl 4y ago

This is untrue. 1) Burning fossil fuels is why we are facing global warming right now. 2) Anti-nuclear sentiment is why we aren't living in a nuclear waste right now. Even nuclear advocate's argument that "nuclear plants are much safer now and the accidents that happened at 3 Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima are impossible now" implies that anti-nuclear sentiment was correct in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000s at the very least!

acidburnNSA 4y ago
Gen II 1970s era nuclear reactors are still among the safest forms of energy known to humanity. Anti-nuclear sentiment has only prolonged the reign of particulate and carbon emitting fossil and biofuel. If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally. Fossil/biofuel particulate emissions killing ~8 million people per year is no joke. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution
- nl 4y ago
  > Gen II 1970s era nuclear reactors are still among the safest forms of energy known to humanity. ... If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally. This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false. Better estimates are hard, but "the Ukrainian government pays benefits to more than 36,000 widows of men who have died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster".[1] There were also at least 200,000 people who had to be relocated. I agree 100% we should get rid of coal ASAP! No dispute there at all. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-kno...
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    > This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false. Actually, it's based on the UNSCEAR number of 4000 deaths including latent cancers. Don't use the Ukraine political numbers. Use the UN panel of scientist numbers. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h...
    - nl 4y ago
      On https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (which I think is the best source) they use 433 deaths from Chernobyl and 2314 from Fukushima. If they used your 4000 number then Nuclear becomes twice as unsafe as solar. (But the point here isn't the number of deaths in the past - because that was moderated by the strong anti-nuclear movements. The risk is higher usage leads to dramatic increases, because deaths are dominated by accidents not constant one-off deaths like from pollution which are more predicable)
      - acidburnNSA 4y ago
        > 2314 from Fukushima Woah I did not realize they used that figure. Everyone agrees that there were between 0 and 1 deaths from radiation due to Fukushima (vs between 31 and 4000 radiation deaths at Chernobyl). There were deaths caused by the prolonged evacuation at Fukushima, which must be where this figure comes from.
xupybd 4y ago
To your first point: Yes, but if Nuclear plants were more common less fossil fuels would be burnt. Hence anti-nuclear sentiment has led to more climate change. To your second: 3 Mile Island was not an accident that caused significant environmental damage. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx#:~:text=In%201979%20at%20Three%20Mile,background%20levels%20to%20local%20residents https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec.... Chernobyl was a terrible design that should never have been built. Fukushima is an example of the dangers. It was however hit by an earthquake 1 magnitude higher than it was designed for and a Tsunami. Given it's location it should have been designed to handle these possibilities.
- epgui 4y ago
  I would argue that Fukushima was a pretty good example of how safe nuclear power is. The damage was very well contained, and the evacuation measures caused more harm than the primary danger.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    I'm pretty pro-nuclear, but a couple hundred billion dollars of damages, a couple dozen direct deaths, some people getting maimed, and causing thousands of deaths by displacing a large population is a catastrophe by any stretch. Yes, fossil fuels may be worse per unit of energy generated, but they are never quite this spectacular in a single event.
    - katbyte 4y ago
      All avoided by not building a nuclear power plant on the coast in a subduction zone prone to intense earthquakes and massive tsunamis
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Yes, but all accidents (not just nuclear) seem to have simple, stupid, easily-avoided factors in retrospect. I know it's tempting to say "oh, if we just don't do these 4-5 dumb things-- the risk is gone". It's s small risk, but boy the end of the tail in what it costs is pretty dang high.
strken 4y ago
In terms of fatalities, we're overly scared of nuclear incidents, and not scared enough of coal power and brownouts. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy You're absolutely correct when you say that less regulated nuclear would have caused more incidents. You may also be correct when you say the risks aren't properly calculated at present. The thing is, that doesn't matter unless they're off by three orders of magnitude. Coal kills so many people through pollution that the world could suffer a Three Mile Island once a year without killing anywhere near as many people as coal does. It is now theoretically possible that solar, wind, and pumped hydro could provide a substantial chunk of global baseload power. We could have gotten there decades ago with nuclear. It's the fault of the green movement that we didn't.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  You are conveniently omitting any form of systemic risk around nuclear.
Joeri 4y ago
Even nuclear advocate's argument that "nuclear plants are much safer now and the accidents that happened at 3 Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima are impossible now" implies that anti-nuclear sentiment was correct in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000s at the very least! Every nuclear disaster so far has been unique, and this will remain the case going forward, because the nuclear sector is always defending against yesterday’s failure mode. Nuclear power plants are some of the most complicated machines mankind has ever built. In such a complex design there are too many permutations of failures that can arise to allow for designing away all risk. We need to fundamentally accept this risk and embrace it if we are going to adopt nuclear power on a grander scale. This is a big ask on a psychological level for humanity, and that’s one reason why I think a nuclear upscaling is not going to happen. (The other is high and rising cost of construction, which is the biggest problem facing the nuclear power sector that is on them to solve.)
avgcorrection 4y ago
A few more Chernobyl-level incidents could have been worth it if it meant less coal plants.

thrown_22 4y ago

When the last chapter of industrial civilization is written some time in the 2100s the number of people the Greens killed in the name of protecting the environment will make every war, genocide and mass murdering dictator look like amateur hour. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is unfortunate we have made Earth into hell though.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
Hi, y’all I’ll take this one for the team. Sorry for generally reducing my resource usage and encouraging others to do so… I guess I’m excited to stop being compared to pol pot or whatever tho.
kleer001 4y ago
> the number of people the Greens killed citation needed
- towaway15463 4y ago
  How does one cite a prediction about the future?