3 ms·

Why is it fundamentally stupid to be opposed to it? Nuclear power in its current form presents tremendous, potentially country-altering downside when things (c

Why is it fundamentally stupid to be opposed to it? Nuclear power in its current form presents tremendous, potentially country-altering downside when things (can and will) go wrong. Is this really the best humanity has got -- the side effect of a decades-old weapons program?

cobrausn 13y ago
Is this really the best humanity has got -- The side effect of a decades-old weapons program? You are asking the question this way hoping someone has a better answer - they don't. Nuclear is our best option for making clean and reliable power that will get us to that next best option. Some of the new designs out there are quite amazing feats of engineering.
- kenster07 13y ago
  A Google search would disagree with your assertion.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    I too can search google and come up with results that say what I want. Care to go into detail about these proven technologies that can power the world and replace our dependence on oil?
  - indefatigable 13y ago
    Your opinions are provided by PageRank? Good to know.
baddox 13y ago
Why is it appropriate to compare the worst case for various methods of power generation? I think it's more appropriate to weigh the potential failure cases of each by the probability of them occurring, and I suspect if we did that, nuclear wouldn't be the most harmful method of power generation.
- kenster07 13y ago
  It certainly is not the best. The worst case scenario for nuclear isn't even remotely acceptable.
DennisP 13y ago
Because the worst nuclear accidents have done less damage than coal plants do every year as part of their normal expected operation. If we were rational we'd replace those coal plants as fast as we could, even if it took nuclear to do it. Because the accidents have all been with very old designs. Even at Fukushima, in the face of a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, reactors built in the 80's instead of the 70's got through it all just fine. Because climate change is turning into such a desperate problem that we can't afford to leave any solutions on the table. And nuclear works quite nicely with solar power...nuclear all the time, solar for extra peak load during the day. Nuclear is not just the side effect of a weapons program. It's an amazing energy source. With the most advanced reactors, all the energy you need for your entire life can come from a lump of fuel smaller than a golfball. It's very sad that our first use of this technology was to kill people. Perhaps if we hadn't figured it out in the middle of WWII, things would have been different, and climate change would be a hypothetical instead of an imminent nightmare.
angersock 13y ago
"Is this really the best humanity has got -- the side effect of a decades-old weapons program?" You mean, like integrated circuits, GPS, and the Internet?

cobrausn 13y ago

Is this really the best humanity has got -- The side effect of a decades-old weapons program? You are asking the question this way hoping someone has a better answer - they don't. Nuclear is our best option for making clean and reliable power that will get us to that next best option. Some of the new designs out there are quite amazing feats of engineering.

kenster07 13y ago
A Google search would disagree with your assertion.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  I too can search google and come up with results that say what I want. Care to go into detail about these proven technologies that can power the world and replace our dependence on oil?
- indefatigable 13y ago
  Your opinions are provided by PageRank? Good to know.

baddox 13y ago

Why is it appropriate to compare the worst case for various methods of power generation? I think it's more appropriate to weigh the potential failure cases of each by the probability of them occurring, and I suspect if we did that, nuclear wouldn't be the most harmful method of power generation.

kenster07 13y ago
It certainly is not the best. The worst case scenario for nuclear isn't even remotely acceptable.

DennisP 13y ago

Because the worst nuclear accidents have done less damage than coal plants do every year as part of their normal expected operation. If we were rational we'd replace those coal plants as fast as we could, even if it took nuclear to do it. Because the accidents have all been with very old designs. Even at Fukushima, in the face of a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, reactors built in the 80's instead of the 70's got through it all just fine. Because climate change is turning into such a desperate problem that we can't afford to leave any solutions on the table. And nuclear works quite nicely with solar power...nuclear all the time, solar for extra peak load during the day. Nuclear is not just the side effect of a weapons program. It's an amazing energy source. With the most advanced reactors, all the energy you need for your entire life can come from a lump of fuel smaller than a golfball. It's very sad that our first use of this technology was to kill people. Perhaps if we hadn't figured it out in the middle of WWII, things would have been different, and climate change would be a hypothetical instead of an imminent nightmare.

angersock 13y ago

"Is this really the best humanity has got -- the side effect of a decades-old weapons program?" You mean, like integrated circuits, GPS, and the Internet?