4 ms·

We do, it's called nuclear power. We could have had unlimited power for effectively no cost if we'd just spammed reactors but we didn't.

ChatGTP 3y ago
I don't know why people just pretend there hasn't been any ultra costly nuclear incidents. Personally, I think nuclear could be fantastic, humans just cannot be trusted to manage it. Fukushima was a case of negligence, it wasn't caused by the Tsunami. The operators did not implement the recommended safety improvements because they didn't respect Murphy's law. So when a case is made like this, "just spam nuclear reactors", you're glossing over the details that we've fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? The cleanup operation hasn't only costed hundreds of billions of dollars, it's severely damaged, and will continue to damage Japans' reputation and desire for exported foods and seafood. I'm not trying to attack you or your views, but if nuclear was easier and cheaper, it would've already proliferated in the same way that solar has. Can you imagine how much solar will exist in 30 years compared to nuclear? it will be absolutely everywhere.
- katbyte 3y ago
  We’ve fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? At my count it’s 2. 2 out of over 400 over 60? Years. And while solar is great, you still need base-load and for most places in most cases solar + storage can’t do that.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    2, one in the Soviet Union with known-to-be unsafe technology with bad incentives around control. The other happened as the result of the biggest recorded tsunami in Japan and human error, again. With that said, cooling reactors need a bit of rethinking with this warmup, rivers may no longer be fine to use.
    - katbyte 3y ago
      not to mention coal kills more people via radiation yearly then have died from those 2 reactor accidents
- armada651 3y ago
  > I don't know why people just pretend there hasn't been any ultra costly nuclear incidents. The costs from climate change far exceeds the cleanup and damage costs from all nuclear accidents combined. Even if we spammed nuclear reactors I still don't think a proportional increase in nuclear accidents would come anywhere near the damages from climate change. The advantage of nuclear energy is that it will only pollute a large area in a disaster. While fossil fuels spread their pollution constantly over the entire planet by design, no disaster required.
- goatlover 3y ago
  As bad as Fukushima and Chernobyl were, they're not barren wastelands. They're just more radioactive, increasing the risks of cancer, birth defects and what not. You can go visit both places. The fear over nuclear accidents is displaced compared to all the damage from fossil fuels.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  The absolute worst case disaster of Chernobyl actually lead to situation that many environmental activist want. A area of nature entirely left alone. With some increase in side effects on animal population, but in general thriving ecosystem. Doesn't honestly seem too bad scenario. And being cynic, isn't population reduction the most effective way to combat climate change anyway?

ChatGTP 3y ago

I don't know why people just pretend there hasn't been any ultra costly nuclear incidents. Personally, I think nuclear could be fantastic, humans just cannot be trusted to manage it. Fukushima was a case of negligence, it wasn't caused by the Tsunami. The operators did not implement the recommended safety improvements because they didn't respect Murphy's law. So when a case is made like this, "just spam nuclear reactors", you're glossing over the details that we've fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? The cleanup operation hasn't only costed hundreds of billions of dollars, it's severely damaged, and will continue to damage Japans' reputation and desire for exported foods and seafood. I'm not trying to attack you or your views, but if nuclear was easier and cheaper, it would've already proliferated in the same way that solar has. Can you imagine how much solar will exist in 30 years compared to nuclear? it will be absolutely everywhere.

katbyte 3y ago
We’ve fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? At my count it’s 2. 2 out of over 400 over 60? Years. And while solar is great, you still need base-load and for most places in most cases solar + storage can’t do that.
- kaba0 3y ago
  2, one in the Soviet Union with known-to-be unsafe technology with bad incentives around control. The other happened as the result of the biggest recorded tsunami in Japan and human error, again. With that said, cooling reactors need a bit of rethinking with this warmup, rivers may no longer be fine to use.
  - katbyte 3y ago
    not to mention coal kills more people via radiation yearly then have died from those 2 reactor accidents
armada651 3y ago
> I don't know why people just pretend there hasn't been any ultra costly nuclear incidents. The costs from climate change far exceeds the cleanup and damage costs from all nuclear accidents combined. Even if we spammed nuclear reactors I still don't think a proportional increase in nuclear accidents would come anywhere near the damages from climate change. The advantage of nuclear energy is that it will only pollute a large area in a disaster. While fossil fuels spread their pollution constantly over the entire planet by design, no disaster required.
goatlover 3y ago
As bad as Fukushima and Chernobyl were, they're not barren wastelands. They're just more radioactive, increasing the risks of cancer, birth defects and what not. You can go visit both places. The fear over nuclear accidents is displaced compared to all the damage from fossil fuels.
Ekaros 3y ago
The absolute worst case disaster of Chernobyl actually lead to situation that many environmental activist want. A area of nature entirely left alone. With some increase in side effects on animal population, but in general thriving ecosystem. Doesn't honestly seem too bad scenario. And being cynic, isn't population reduction the most effective way to combat climate change anyway?