3 ms·
Stupid, no. The nuclear equation was viewed very differently in those times. Recall that back then, Chernobyl was still a very fresh memory. Meanwhile, the o
by lisasays 4y ago
Stupid, no.
The nuclear equation was viewed very differently in those times. Recall that back then, Chernobyl was still a very fresh memory.
Meanwhile, the other half of the decision (to move to renewables) was quite prescient for its time.
- cubefox 4y agoBut it was terrible! France produces much less CO2 than Germany and doesn't have a major energy crisis, because they switched to nuclear power.
- senectus1 3y agoFrance is also a smaller economy with a smaller population with fewer industry. they also have a significant issue with dumping hot water into streams killing off the flora and fauna, which means in the heat of summer they have to scale back their nuclear stations significantly.
- autoexec 3y agoEven when nuclear power plants weren't leaking dangerous levels of radiation over cities they were still producing hazardous waste we had no real means to deal with besides hiding it under the rug and hoping to hell it stays contained. Getting rid of nuclear power would have been fine if renewables had advanced enough to replace them, and for a while it was looking like that was entirely possible. I've always thought investing in some new nuclear power plants would be a good idea so we could get off coal sooner but getting rid of nuclear power plants should still be our ultimate goal.