3 ms·
> ... one singular bad accident can completely obliterate the economic rationale for nuclear power in a given country. The anything-but-nuclear policy has caus
by Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> ... one singular bad accident can completely obliterate the economic rationale for nuclear power in a given country.
The anything-but-nuclear policy has caused fossil fuel wars costing hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
The parent comment is not merely wrong, it is the opposite of correct. Having a Fukushima-size meltdown every few years would be an economic bargain.
- api 13y agoThis is simply unrelated. Fossil fuels are worth a lot of money and are frequently located in areas controlled by unstable regimes, hence wars. There are also wars over water, diamonds, gold, arable land, and any other high-value commodity located where the local political environment is unstable. Using a lot of nuclear power would not alter this picture in the slightest. It might alter the landscape in terms of supply and demand, perhaps shifting fossil fuel demand from heavy nuclear users toward developing or lower-tech countries, but the basic equation of high value resources plus political instability remains intact. California is highly oil-dependent and Texas has a lot of oil. So far California has not invaded Texas. That's because both are politically stable.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago> shifting fossil fuel demand from heavy nuclear users toward developing or lower-tech countries Right! Let someone else pour blood and treasure into the sands of the Middle East, while we enjoy a nuclear-electric-hydrogen economy. The goal is our prosperity, not the stability of a bunch of oily camel jockeys.