21 ms·

Because it's the greenest and safest form of base load power we have right now. It may be more expensive but the loss of human capital vs burning coal and the r

Because it's the greenest and safest form of base load power we have right now. It may be more expensive but the loss of human capital vs burning coal and the reliability vs renewables makes it more valuable, and that's on top of diversifying Europe's fuel sources which is a good thing.

pineaux 2y ago
If you compare it to transportation it is a bit like flying: its the safest way and it has many other upsides, but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. With nuclear power even more so. When a nuclear accident happens a large area can be rendered uninhabitable for a period longer than the written history of the world. And it is a question of "when", not one of "if". Mistakes, boeing-like profit-maximizing strategies, terrorism, war. A heavy explosive on a nuclear power plant effectively creates a dirty bomb. I think these arguments shouldn't be wiped under the rug.
- damsalor 2y ago
  Always wondered why nuclear plants are not built in uninhabitated regions to mitigate risk
  - Krutonium 2y ago
    They usually don't start inhabited, but then the people building and working at it want to live closer, which pulls in the support roles of stores, which bring more people, etc etc etc. If you build somthing in the middle of nowhere, and employ people there, the somthing will create a local population.
  - soco 2y ago
    There are not that many big enough inhabited places left in Europe. And if you build them in Siberia, you're back to square one - dependency on the current tyrant in charge.
- vaylian 2y ago
  Especially when we think about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is currently occupied by Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
  - TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
    And yet it was Kakhovka dam causing disaster. So should we stop building dams by this logic?
    - vaylian 2y ago
      It's not only the dam (which was helpful for keeping the power plant cooled down) that was destroyed by the russians. There is also evidence that they planted explosive devices in the power plant. The whole power plant is taken as a hostage.
    - kvemkon 2y ago
      The huge difference is the lasting time. Few days or a week the water has gone and you can start with repairs/rebuilding. But after a nuclear disaster all is polluted for foreseeable future and not usable even if all infrastructure and buildings are intact and look safe.
      - TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
        Which is not true, if you look into for example Three Miles Island reactor meltdown, where from outside point of view, there is no difference and only 600 meters exclusion zone from the reactor. Furthermore nuclear disasters killed dozens of people, while water related disasters killed thousands of people. Another reason to ban dams.
        kvemkon 2y ago
        Nuclear disasters worldwide killed thousands - tens of thousands of people.
- boxed 2y ago
  And yet France continues to exist...
  - VBprogrammer 2y ago
    I love that France uses the same strategy for Nuclear power as I did with SimCity back as a 12 year old. Look at where the Chooz power station is for example. If their reactors had a melt down it wouldn't be France (for the most part) that suffered.
    - account42 2y ago
      To be fair, it also isn't only France that benefits from those reactors. Energy prices in Germany would be even worse without nuclear power plants right next to the border.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  > If you compare it to transportation it is a bit like flying: its the safest way and it has many other upsides, but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. With nuclear power even more so. But flying is still the safest way to travel, despite a few tragic accidents. This logic doesn't make any sense. > When a nuclear accident happens a large area can be rendered uninhabitable for a period longer than the written history of the world. Chernobyl exclusion zone is roughly 50x50km and life is actually flourishing in there. You can see it as a tiny natural reserve which are numerous on earth and are generally seen as a good thing.
- dghughes 2y ago
  > but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. That depends on the type since not all nuclear power plants are the same design. Here in Canada the CANDU style is very safe in design and uses natural uranium fuel not plutonium. or even thorium.
- account42 2y ago
  That's a good analogy. If there is a problem with nuclear it is a BIG THING(tm) that makes the news and gets people scared. Just like a plain crash. But those events are extremely rare. Meanwhile coal/cars get to slowly rack up many more kills and the general public doesn't care.
account42 2y ago
> It may be more expensive That's also largely due to nuclear having to pay for its externalities while coal and even "renewable" energies get to shrug them off.

pineaux 2y ago

If you compare it to transportation it is a bit like flying: its the safest way and it has many other upsides, but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. With nuclear power even more so. When a nuclear accident happens a large area can be rendered uninhabitable for a period longer than the written history of the world. And it is a question of "when", not one of "if". Mistakes, boeing-like profit-maximizing strategies, terrorism, war. A heavy explosive on a nuclear power plant effectively creates a dirty bomb. I think these arguments shouldn't be wiped under the rug.

damsalor 2y ago
Always wondered why nuclear plants are not built in uninhabitated regions to mitigate risk
- Krutonium 2y ago
  They usually don't start inhabited, but then the people building and working at it want to live closer, which pulls in the support roles of stores, which bring more people, etc etc etc. If you build somthing in the middle of nowhere, and employ people there, the somthing will create a local population.
- soco 2y ago
  There are not that many big enough inhabited places left in Europe. And if you build them in Siberia, you're back to square one - dependency on the current tyrant in charge.
vaylian 2y ago
Especially when we think about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is currently occupied by Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
- TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
  And yet it was Kakhovka dam causing disaster. So should we stop building dams by this logic?
  - vaylian 2y ago
    It's not only the dam (which was helpful for keeping the power plant cooled down) that was destroyed by the russians. There is also evidence that they planted explosive devices in the power plant. The whole power plant is taken as a hostage.
  - kvemkon 2y ago
    The huge difference is the lasting time. Few days or a week the water has gone and you can start with repairs/rebuilding. But after a nuclear disaster all is polluted for foreseeable future and not usable even if all infrastructure and buildings are intact and look safe.
    - TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
      Which is not true, if you look into for example Three Miles Island reactor meltdown, where from outside point of view, there is no difference and only 600 meters exclusion zone from the reactor. Furthermore nuclear disasters killed dozens of people, while water related disasters killed thousands of people. Another reason to ban dams.
      - kvemkon 2y ago
        Nuclear disasters worldwide killed thousands - tens of thousands of people.
boxed 2y ago
And yet France continues to exist...
- VBprogrammer 2y ago
  I love that France uses the same strategy for Nuclear power as I did with SimCity back as a 12 year old. Look at where the Chooz power station is for example. If their reactors had a melt down it wouldn't be France (for the most part) that suffered.
  - account42 2y ago
    To be fair, it also isn't only France that benefits from those reactors. Energy prices in Germany would be even worse without nuclear power plants right next to the border.
alexey-salmin 2y ago
> If you compare it to transportation it is a bit like flying: its the safest way and it has many other upsides, but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. With nuclear power even more so. But flying is still the safest way to travel, despite a few tragic accidents. This logic doesn't make any sense. > When a nuclear accident happens a large area can be rendered uninhabitable for a period longer than the written history of the world. Chernobyl exclusion zone is roughly 50x50km and life is actually flourishing in there. You can see it as a tiny natural reserve which are numerous on earth and are generally seen as a good thing.
dghughes 2y ago
> but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. That depends on the type since not all nuclear power plants are the same design. Here in Canada the CANDU style is very safe in design and uses natural uranium fuel not plutonium. or even thorium.
account42 2y ago
That's a good analogy. If there is a problem with nuclear it is a BIG THING(tm) that makes the news and gets people scared. Just like a plain crash. But those events are extremely rare. Meanwhile coal/cars get to slowly rack up many more kills and the general public doesn't care.

account42 2y ago

> It may be more expensive That's also largely due to nuclear having to pay for its externalities while coal and even "renewable" energies get to shrug them off.