4 ms·

I think nuclear power plants aren't worth the risk. I often hear arguments such as that modern reactors don't have the issues old ones had etc.. As long as it c

I think nuclear power plants aren't worth the risk. I often hear arguments such as that modern reactors don't have the issues old ones had etc.. As long as it can't be guaranteed to me that e.g. a terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years, I most likely won't change my opinion. I think living in the stone age is better than taking the risk.

anonporridge 4y ago
I think this line of thinking has defaulted us onto a path of drastically increased carbon in the atmosphere, with no signs of stopping, which is at best going to drastically change the world and take centuries to remove, and at worst could trigger a massive biosphere collapse that drives our species to extinction. The Earth has 150 MILLION km2 of land. We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine. Prioritize your fear.
- I_am_tiberius 4y ago
  Why do you think you have to decide between bad and worse? I think we should prioritize our planet over economy and lifestyle.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    I don't. I think the generation before me misprioritized their fear and decided to block progress on nuclear fission, which implicitly supported the continued expansion of carbon fuel burning, to the detriment of future generations. It's an observation of historical fact, not a future decision. > I think we should prioritize our planet over economy and lifestyle. I think we should prioritize the continuance of civilization over the planet. The planet and life on it will be perfectly fine after we're gone. It's been through drastically worse.
  - mgfist 4y ago
    Because you have to look at reality. You may be willing to do that (though I doubt it), but people at large do not.
    - I_am_tiberius 4y ago
      It's very clear to me that what I write is not realistic. But I think it's objectively the best way.
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  >We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine. Your numbers are off by orders of magnitude. The exclusion zone for Chernobyl alone is 2600 km2, the areas immediately affected in the 3 neighboring countries is 130 000 km2, food and livestock in areas over 3000 km from the site have to be fed special food supplements in order to pass regulation for human consumption to this day. And this was despite the fire in Chernobyl being handled, limiting the actual amount of fallout released into the atmosphere. IMO, correctly prioritizing our fears means we should put all efforts towards solar and energy storage solutions. That's the optimal solution after all, aiming for anything else is like playing not to win.
panick21_ 4y ago
> terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years That can't actually happen. And if you believe it can, you are wrong. Please explain the mechanics of how that would happen to me! Ill wait.
- I_am_tiberius 4y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122278/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122278/
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    I can't actually find what mock terrorist attack these were and what effects there were. Sure in theory enough radio active materials exists that if you somehow blew it up and vaporized the whole spend fuel pool it would require a significant exclusion zone. To put such amount of explosives into that pool to vaporize the spent fuel roads would require an absurd amount of explosives. And the exclusion zone for these things is way to big anyway, many people live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and they are not actually negatively impacted. But of course if you assume terrorist of unlimited capabilities there lots of technologies that are not viable and we use them anyway.

anonporridge 4y ago

I think this line of thinking has defaulted us onto a path of drastically increased carbon in the atmosphere, with no signs of stopping, which is at best going to drastically change the world and take centuries to remove, and at worst could trigger a massive biosphere collapse that drives our species to extinction. The Earth has 150 MILLION km2 of land. We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine. Prioritize your fear.

I_am_tiberius 4y ago
Why do you think you have to decide between bad and worse? I think we should prioritize our planet over economy and lifestyle.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  I don't. I think the generation before me misprioritized their fear and decided to block progress on nuclear fission, which implicitly supported the continued expansion of carbon fuel burning, to the detriment of future generations. It's an observation of historical fact, not a future decision. > I think we should prioritize our planet over economy and lifestyle. I think we should prioritize the continuance of civilization over the planet. The planet and life on it will be perfectly fine after we're gone. It's been through drastically worse.
- mgfist 4y ago
  Because you have to look at reality. You may be willing to do that (though I doubt it), but people at large do not.
  - I_am_tiberius 4y ago
    It's very clear to me that what I write is not realistic. But I think it's objectively the best way.
Kon5ole 4y ago
>We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine. Your numbers are off by orders of magnitude. The exclusion zone for Chernobyl alone is 2600 km2, the areas immediately affected in the 3 neighboring countries is 130 000 km2, food and livestock in areas over 3000 km from the site have to be fed special food supplements in order to pass regulation for human consumption to this day. And this was despite the fire in Chernobyl being handled, limiting the actual amount of fallout released into the atmosphere. IMO, correctly prioritizing our fears means we should put all efforts towards solar and energy storage solutions. That's the optimal solution after all, aiming for anything else is like playing not to win.

panick21_ 4y ago

> terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years That can't actually happen. And if you believe it can, you are wrong. Please explain the mechanics of how that would happen to me! Ill wait.

I_am_tiberius 4y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122278/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122278/
- panick21_ 4y ago
  I can't actually find what mock terrorist attack these were and what effects there were. Sure in theory enough radio active materials exists that if you somehow blew it up and vaporized the whole spend fuel pool it would require a significant exclusion zone. To put such amount of explosives into that pool to vaporize the spent fuel roads would require an absurd amount of explosives. And the exclusion zone for these things is way to big anyway, many people live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and they are not actually negatively impacted. But of course if you assume terrorist of unlimited capabilities there lots of technologies that are not viable and we use them anyway.