2 ms·

Yes there is reason: The high cost, the unsolved waste issue and the inherent strategic danger such a centralization of power production would pose. You'd only

Yes there is reason: The high cost, the unsolved waste issue and the inherent strategic danger such a centralization of power production would pose. You'd only have to hit a few large power plants to take out the electricity of an entire country. When done right, attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown. Since you brought up lobbying, it's fascinating to me how many nuclear power fans the industry has created who are not informed by data and facts but are utterly convinced that nuclear power is the solution to all our energy issues.

93po 4y ago
The cost is not high if you consider the cost of pollution caused by other methods. And nuclear waste is absolutely a solved problem and is entirely unproblematic. These are thoroughly debunked talking points. > attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or even just a big building. > not informed by data and facts Said by the person who's repeating misinformation
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  It's not feasible but also it's the same danger as with dams? Which is it? In reality, both nuclear power plants and dams have been attacked many times over the past decades. More decentralized power production has other disadvantages but clearly it can't be targeted as easily. The attacker would take out a single wind turbine or someone's roof PV. The effects would be negligible on a national level. The cost btw is even higher than most people think considering that energy companies aren't paying for most of it but tax payers do. Some not even born yet. But even without factoring in those future costs, as you suggested we do, nuclear power in its current form is among the most expensive forms of power production. Again, look at the data, not energy company propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
  - 93po 4y ago
    More than 8 million people die every year from breathing polluted air containing particles from fossil fuel emissions. What would you put the cost of that at? Until we factor that in as an a cost for carbon emitting power generation, we cannot make a fair comparison of the cost of nuclear.

93po 4y ago

The cost is not high if you consider the cost of pollution caused by other methods. And nuclear waste is absolutely a solved problem and is entirely unproblematic. These are thoroughly debunked talking points. > attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or even just a big building. > not informed by data and facts Said by the person who's repeating misinformation

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
It's not feasible but also it's the same danger as with dams? Which is it? In reality, both nuclear power plants and dams have been attacked many times over the past decades. More decentralized power production has other disadvantages but clearly it can't be targeted as easily. The attacker would take out a single wind turbine or someone's roof PV. The effects would be negligible on a national level. The cost btw is even higher than most people think considering that energy companies aren't paying for most of it but tax payers do. Some not even born yet. But even without factoring in those future costs, as you suggested we do, nuclear power in its current form is among the most expensive forms of power production. Again, look at the data, not energy company propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
- 93po 4y ago
  More than 8 million people die every year from breathing polluted air containing particles from fossil fuel emissions. What would you put the cost of that at? Until we factor that in as an a cost for carbon emitting power generation, we cannot make a fair comparison of the cost of nuclear.