5 ms·

It is water that qas involved with a nuclear reactor. Yes, people are that afraid of nuclear.

echelon 3y ago
The greens of the 80's did so much more harm than good. If we'd built the capacity then, we'd have a whole lot less carbon in the atmosphere today.
- the-dude 3y ago
  The anti-nuclear stance of the Greens can't be judged in isolation and must be seen in the context of the Cold War and the impeding Nuclear Armageddon. I don't necessarily agree with the Greens but I remember this perilous time very well. And it was the incumbent non-Green powers who created this situation. Furthermore, this is not the only theme the Greens pressed on and I must admit our country is already much much better for it ( cleaner air, cleaner waters ).
  - killjoywashere 3y ago
    > cleaner air, cleaner waters How much? Of what?
    - the-dude 3y ago
      Trolls
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Not sure shutting down nukes and extending the life of coal power plants (or going all-in on Russian gas) was great for the air or water.
    - the-dude 3y ago
      I wish your comment was better.
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        How can I improve it?
        the-dude 3y ago
        By considering the context of the OP and my response, which was the 80s. By not injecting partisan stuff. By adding something insightful or something we might not know already.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  There needs to be a distinction between greens who can and cannot add. Same for the classic "look at that ugly city, so bad for the environment!" Bay area types who forced suburban sprawl.
- mxmbrb 3y ago
  The management of the establishment was what killed the vibe for fission energy. And in this regard the greens where right. Many facilities (back then and now) where unsafe (e.g. Ukranie) and are still a threat (e.g. France) Add to that the short sighted actions by everyone involved. (DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location (germany)) For me that's enogh to loose trust in governments and companies beeing able to run such an operation. Fukushima beeing the final nail to this coffin for many. Maybe when we can proof the reliability, safety and waste efficiency of modern reactor systems, we can rebuild this trust. But either way, we are surely talking 20-60 years. It's scorched earth.
  - MagnumOpus 3y ago
    > DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location And this is a massive political issue with which the Green parties collect millions of votes. Meanwhile "of 265 US power plants that monitor groundwater, 242 report unsafe levels of at least one pollutant derived from coal ash" - so instead of the small potential of ground water contamination from a small number of nuclear plant waste barrels, people passively chose the almost certainty of ground water contamination by leachate containing arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium and thallium - a chunk of it radioactive. But it got votes.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    Maybe that's the biggest problem, really. The design, deployment, regulatory/political hurdles, and the long operational lifetime of nuclear power plants, make that any improvements take a loooonng time to bear fruit. Inertia of the installed base with its problems (and history), makes new development near-impossible. That situation propably won't improve until newer designs accumulate a multi-decade track record of safety, or fusion power gets commercialized.

The greens of the 80's did so much more harm than good. If we'd built the capacity then, we'd have a whole lot less carbon in the atmosphere today.

the-dude 3y ago
The anti-nuclear stance of the Greens can't be judged in isolation and must be seen in the context of the Cold War and the impeding Nuclear Armageddon. I don't necessarily agree with the Greens but I remember this perilous time very well. And it was the incumbent non-Green powers who created this situation. Furthermore, this is not the only theme the Greens pressed on and I must admit our country is already much much better for it ( cleaner air, cleaner waters ).
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  > cleaner air, cleaner waters How much? Of what?
  - the-dude 3y ago
    Trolls
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Not sure shutting down nukes and extending the life of coal power plants (or going all-in on Russian gas) was great for the air or water.
  - the-dude 3y ago
    I wish your comment was better.
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      How can I improve it?
      - the-dude 3y ago
        By considering the context of the OP and my response, which was the 80s. By not injecting partisan stuff. By adding something insightful or something we might not know already.
CalRobert 3y ago
There needs to be a distinction between greens who can and cannot add. Same for the classic "look at that ugly city, so bad for the environment!" Bay area types who forced suburban sprawl.
mxmbrb 3y ago
The management of the establishment was what killed the vibe for fission energy. And in this regard the greens where right. Many facilities (back then and now) where unsafe (e.g. Ukranie) and are still a threat (e.g. France) Add to that the short sighted actions by everyone involved. (DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location (germany)) For me that's enogh to loose trust in governments and companies beeing able to run such an operation. Fukushima beeing the final nail to this coffin for many. Maybe when we can proof the reliability, safety and waste efficiency of modern reactor systems, we can rebuild this trust. But either way, we are surely talking 20-60 years. It's scorched earth.
- MagnumOpus 3y ago
  > DROPPING barrels in an abandoned mine for final storage, just to find out it does not only totally leak, but advisors precisely warned about it beeing not a suitable location And this is a massive political issue with which the Green parties collect millions of votes. Meanwhile "of 265 US power plants that monitor groundwater, 242 report unsafe levels of at least one pollutant derived from coal ash" - so instead of the small potential of ground water contamination from a small number of nuclear plant waste barrels, people passively chose the almost certainty of ground water contamination by leachate containing arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium and thallium - a chunk of it radioactive. But it got votes.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  Maybe that's the biggest problem, really. The design, deployment, regulatory/political hurdles, and the long operational lifetime of nuclear power plants, make that any improvements take a loooonng time to bear fruit. Inertia of the installed base with its problems (and history), makes new development near-impossible. That situation propably won't improve until newer designs accumulate a multi-decade track record of safety, or fusion power gets commercialized.