4 ms·

I don't agree. If it was invented today, you'd have the same fear-mongering, the same lobbying from the coal industry. In addition, you'd also be lacking the d

I don't agree. If it was invented today, you'd have the same fear-mongering, the same lobbying from the coal industry. In addition, you'd also be lacking the decades of safety data that we can use to turn the tide.

throwbadubadu 4y ago
We see again just how fearful and critical the situation is around Ukrainian plant... with climate change conflicts in the world will likely increase. So yeah, call me fearful, we don't need that and could have been long into enough multiple better alternatives. They are no option for most of the world.
- piva00 4y ago
  > They are no option for most of the world. It's the crux of the issue for me. I'm not at all against nuclear reactors as part of the energy mix of some countries but the vast majority of countries do not have the infrastructure (socioeconomic included) to properly maintain dozens of reactors going with a stellar safety record. It takes a lot of money, low corruption, stability, and properly following procedures to keep nuclear reactors safe. I can't see those conditions being met by a large set of countries over 5-7 decades to consider nuclear reactors as a solution. When you consider that even Japan with Fukushima had issues with designing a safe plant...
  - tooltower 4y ago
    You might be surprised by how much of the world uses nuclear power, and has done so for decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country Indeed, your argument about stability and infrastructure all applies to other modern amenities too. E.g. air travel. They have all worked fine. I myself come from a country of high corruption. Yet I trust them to maintain nuclear power plants.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    While I do agree there were problems with Fukushima note that despite how badly things went the expected death toll was zero. That is, until the politicians got involved and killed hundreds in their need to be seen to do something (and their going anti-nuke is going to kill even more down the road.) Beware of safety data that assigns those deaths to nuclear. (The correct number is around .02 or .03 per Twh. When you see stuff around .07/Twh you're looking at contaminated data.)

throwbadubadu 4y ago

We see again just how fearful and critical the situation is around Ukrainian plant... with climate change conflicts in the world will likely increase. So yeah, call me fearful, we don't need that and could have been long into enough multiple better alternatives. They are no option for most of the world.

piva00 4y ago
> They are no option for most of the world. It's the crux of the issue for me. I'm not at all against nuclear reactors as part of the energy mix of some countries but the vast majority of countries do not have the infrastructure (socioeconomic included) to properly maintain dozens of reactors going with a stellar safety record. It takes a lot of money, low corruption, stability, and properly following procedures to keep nuclear reactors safe. I can't see those conditions being met by a large set of countries over 5-7 decades to consider nuclear reactors as a solution. When you consider that even Japan with Fukushima had issues with designing a safe plant...
- tooltower 4y ago
  You might be surprised by how much of the world uses nuclear power, and has done so for decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country Indeed, your argument about stability and infrastructure all applies to other modern amenities too. E.g. air travel. They have all worked fine. I myself come from a country of high corruption. Yet I trust them to maintain nuclear power plants.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  While I do agree there were problems with Fukushima note that despite how badly things went the expected death toll was zero. That is, until the politicians got involved and killed hundreds in their need to be seen to do something (and their going anti-nuke is going to kill even more down the road.) Beware of safety data that assigns those deaths to nuclear. (The correct number is around .02 or .03 per Twh. When you see stuff around .07/Twh you're looking at contaminated data.)