4 ms·

Because nuclear is hazardous, and because of that, also vastly more expensive. The people here that claim it isn't a patently dangerous source of energy are not

Because nuclear is hazardous, and because of that, also vastly more expensive. The people here that claim it isn't a patently dangerous source of energy are not being honest IMO, maybe not even to themselves.

Gud 4y ago
It is not so dangerous though, it’s one of the safest energy sources together with wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  Oh, please. You say "It is not so dangerous" (note the it is) and then refer to a webpage that makes some handwavy aggregation of deaths and attribute them to this or that source of energy, based on the events up to now. That may or may not be accurate (probably not), the real problem with nuclear is not the disasters that have happened so far (and are still ongoing), it is mainly what potentially can happen. I say so without diminishing the fact that people have heroically sacrificed their health and lives in order to prevent even greater disasters at primarily Chernobyl and Fukushima [0]. Or that we are no longer able to eat wild mushrooms in large swathes of Sweden where I live because of the fallout in 1986, and much of the hunted game, especially wild boar, is not fit for human consumption. [1] It honestly doesn't impress me much when people simply spout the industry talking points seemingly without even considering that there is a risk involved: 'here, look at this website it says "safe"'. The wikipedia entry on the debate is more like what one could expect from otherwise thinking people: there are some pros and grave cons [2]. The pros are in my opinion negligible, now that we have safer and cheaper sources, and nuclear can be scrapped in an orderly fashion, for example by demanding that each plant starts paying their own insurance cost. Which would make the whole thing economically unsustainable because the insurance companies would charge an insane premium. [3] Which says it all really. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-... NB: Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are at the top level 7 of the International Nuclear Event Scale, which is a good reminder that those things that the nuclear industry say can never happen, actually do happen. Anyway, it's just Murphys law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl-33-years-on-radiation-still-impacts-scandinavian-farmers https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
  - Gud 4y ago
    So exactly how do you propose we calculate how dangerous nuclear power is except for deaths per TWh up to now? You keep claiming how dangerous it is, yet you post no numbers at all. Perhaps because the numbers don't look so bad? If certain species of wild mushrooms now being inedible in the Scandinavian wilderness is the worst you can come up with, considering how much life nuclear power has given by keeping us warm and fed, well I consider it a pretty decent trade off. FWIW I work in the energy sector(with wind power no less) and how people can still have such strong anti-nuclear opinions boggles my mind. We need every non-fossil energy source up and running ASAP, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, all of it.
    - stareatgoats 4y ago
      > If certain species of wild mushrooms now being inedible in the Scandinavian wilderness is the worst you can come up with ?? OK, tror inte vi kommer längre här Gud. Ha en god kväll.
      - Gud 4y ago
        Detsamma!

Gud 4y ago

It is not so dangerous though, it’s one of the safest energy sources together with wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

stareatgoats 4y ago
Oh, please. You say "It is not so dangerous" (note the it is) and then refer to a webpage that makes some handwavy aggregation of deaths and attribute them to this or that source of energy, based on the events up to now. That may or may not be accurate (probably not), the real problem with nuclear is not the disasters that have happened so far (and are still ongoing), it is mainly what potentially can happen. I say so without diminishing the fact that people have heroically sacrificed their health and lives in order to prevent even greater disasters at primarily Chernobyl and Fukushima [0]. Or that we are no longer able to eat wild mushrooms in large swathes of Sweden where I live because of the fallout in 1986, and much of the hunted game, especially wild boar, is not fit for human consumption. [1] It honestly doesn't impress me much when people simply spout the industry talking points seemingly without even considering that there is a risk involved: 'here, look at this website it says "safe"'. The wikipedia entry on the debate is more like what one could expect from otherwise thinking people: there are some pros and grave cons [2]. The pros are in my opinion negligible, now that we have safer and cheaper sources, and nuclear can be scrapped in an orderly fashion, for example by demanding that each plant starts paying their own insurance cost. Which would make the whole thing economically unsustainable because the insurance companies would charge an insane premium. [3] Which says it all really. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-... NB: Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are at the top level 7 of the International Nuclear Event Scale, which is a good reminder that those things that the nuclear industry say can never happen, actually do happen. Anyway, it's just Murphys law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl-33-years-on-radiation-still-impacts-scandinavian-farmers https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
- Gud 4y ago
  So exactly how do you propose we calculate how dangerous nuclear power is except for deaths per TWh up to now? You keep claiming how dangerous it is, yet you post no numbers at all. Perhaps because the numbers don't look so bad? If certain species of wild mushrooms now being inedible in the Scandinavian wilderness is the worst you can come up with, considering how much life nuclear power has given by keeping us warm and fed, well I consider it a pretty decent trade off. FWIW I work in the energy sector(with wind power no less) and how people can still have such strong anti-nuclear opinions boggles my mind. We need every non-fossil energy source up and running ASAP, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, all of it.
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    > If certain species of wild mushrooms now being inedible in the Scandinavian wilderness is the worst you can come up with ?? OK, tror inte vi kommer längre här Gud. Ha en god kväll.
    - Gud 4y ago
      Detsamma!