3 ms·

The waste 'problem' is minor compared to current generation which burns fuels and just releases it into the atmosphere. Long term waste storage sites are possi

by brc 12y ago

The waste 'problem' is minor compared to current generation which burns fuels and just releases it into the atmosphere. Long term waste storage sites are possible. No current efficient power generation is either waste or accident free, although natural gas is probably the best if you have access to it. Coal mining kills many more people than nuclear ever has, and leaves holes all over the place. On a per-megawatt basis, nuclear is the safest generation type. However, these are factual arguments which normal people can discuss and argue, which is fine. What I am talking about is non-factual hysteria, of which many groups have produced volumes of, to the point where the average uninformed person will react badly to the mere mention of nuclear power. Popular culture is full of references to nuclear accidents or bombs leaving areas uninhabitable for 10,000 years or more, and most people are irrationally frightened of radiation in tiny quantities. Nuclear power is an excellent power source for reliable, emissions free base load power. Instead of trying to shut down any research or funding, those that are concerned should be pressing for phasing out of old plants and replacement with newer, safer designs. And coming up with the best waste storage plans.

xorcist 12y ago
> What I am talking about is non-factual hysteria Yet this non factual hysteria has essentially zero bearing on important power infrastructure. But every time nuclear technology falls short in some way, its proponents come rushing online to blame the shortcomings on some anti nuclear cabal that has somehow infiltrated both society and media. Personally I think the worst problems of nuclear power are those proponents. Without the constant straw men of this or that technology is much more bad perhaps there could be some constructive public debate, but we haven't seen that in my lifetime. Nuclear (fission) power is very expensive 60s technology. Centralized big plants with lots of high pressure steam and exotic compounds. Billions have been spent on research for over 40 years, and the technology that is promising today is pretty much the same same as in the 80s. Breeder technology for example has time and time again been shown to be expensive and prone to failure. The whole energy sector is full of these complicated problems. Fusion power seems just as far away as 30 years ago. Solar and wind has obvious scaling problems. Only hydro power and geothermal power is reliable and cheap enough but doesn't work everywhere.

by brc 12y ago

xorcist 12y ago

> What I am talking about is non-factual hysteria Yet this non factual hysteria has essentially zero bearing on important power infrastructure. But every time nuclear technology falls short in some way, its proponents come rushing online to blame the shortcomings on some anti nuclear cabal that has somehow infiltrated both society and media. Personally I think the worst problems of nuclear power are those proponents. Without the constant straw men of this or that technology is much more bad perhaps there could be some constructive public debate, but we haven't seen that in my lifetime. Nuclear (fission) power is very expensive 60s technology. Centralized big plants with lots of high pressure steam and exotic compounds. Billions have been spent on research for over 40 years, and the technology that is promising today is pretty much the same same as in the 80s. Breeder technology for example has time and time again been shown to be expensive and prone to failure. The whole energy sector is full of these complicated problems. Fusion power seems just as far away as 30 years ago. Solar and wind has obvious scaling problems. Only hydro power and geothermal power is reliable and cheap enough but doesn't work everywhere.