5 ms·
> For nuclear to be accepted, it needs better public messaging, because ultimately people are reacting emotionally rather than thinking critically. A great sta
by Schroedingersat 4y ago
> For nuclear to be accepted, it needs better public messaging, because ultimately people are reacting emotionally rather than thinking critically.
A great start would be not consistently lying about everything until the lies are indisputably proven and then pretending it never happened every single time about everything for over 70 years.
Demonstrate a walkaway safe pebble bed reactor or similar that doesn't break down constantly or start leaking unsustainable levels of Kr-85. Remediate the hundreds of contaminated mines, spills and processing sites that the buck is being passed on. Stop demanding unlimited indemnity from any accident exceeding a pittance. Actually tell the truth about contamination events and levels entailed in standard practise ahead of time. Allow actually independent third parties rather than industry bodies to confirm claims on site, and estimate costs that are somewhere in the ballpark of reality with no backroom 'service' contracts. Stop pretending you've 'solved' waste by gathering a quarter of the money required and saying "we'll probably bury the SNF somewhere", don't worry about all the low level and intermediate waste. Demonstrate the existence of a viable fuel source or breeding program that isn't walking a tight rope on the edge of prompt criticality. Demonstrate a reprocessing process that doesn't push an entire continent's coastlines to 5% of safe limits whilst producing barely enough fuel to run about 2GW of reactors.
Then it's worth considering as something that isn't just another scam.
Until that point the oligopily of the nuclear industry should be rightly treated as a bunch of craven ghouls who are having a tantrum because they were held to account and didn't get to hoard billions whilst killing millions of people like the coal barons did.
- marmetio 4y agoI'm not a marketing person. I have no idea how they'll address past bad behavior, dispel common myths, or educate about fundamentally new technologies that eliminate old problems. I'm just saying they'll eventually have to do it.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoThe alternative is we ignore the entire cesspit and acknowledge that accepting 2-5% of energy being provided by fossil fuels in a small minority of countries until storage matures is better than putting everything on hold and hoping that gifting a few trillion dollars to people who have done nothing but scam will work better.
- marmetio 4y agoYou've lost me.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoThere's a much better solution than sitting and pretending nuclear is going to save the day. Let's use that.
- marmetio 4y agoIs this another tactic to reject nuclear, or are you just wandering off-topic?
- Schroedingersat 4y agoYou're pretending the option is fossil fuels or nuclear like every other concern troll. Never has been because nuclear is incapable of solving the problem.
- marmetio 4y agoYou're illustrating the problem I described originally. When it's time to discus nuclear, people like you can't do it. You deflected by changing the subject to comparing different energy sources.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoRefusing to acknowledge your attempt to force the conversation into a very narrow framing where the true source of risk and harm is ignored isn't deflecting. And your last point is incredibly disingenuous. Having a nuclear reactor isn't an end, having energy is. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of alternatives and that they beat your proposal on its supposed merits is the inabity to have a discussion. This is an incredibly transparent attempt to frame a conversation in such a way that the only possible avenue of discussion is how long we have to sit on our thumbs and wait for a gen IV nuclear reactor to materialise whilst ignoring the absolute failure of any previous designs to deliver on their promise of cheap, clean, abundant, or safe power. Your gaslighting is not as subtle as you think it is. Refusing to believe nuclear advocates isn't 'panic' or irrational when the lies have been so consistent for wellover three generations that assuming the opposite of what you say is a much better strategy for coming to correct conclusions than believing you.