Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
If I remember it right, we can kill ourselves with nuclear explosives at least since the 60s or 70s.
Jilano204776dHonestly, climate change is already a problem. Looks what happened/is happening in Europe right now. We never had those kind of temperatures/weather before.
endor50926dHint: regular nuclear power plants don't explode like that.
And yes, details DO matter.
As for real power plants, Chernobyl was a long time ago, and in a much worse political climate.
And Fukushima, while it could have been avoided, was still pretty well contained.
Nuclear power is very safe when done right.
We possess the knowledge to do things right.
It's just a matter of not being too greedy.
And while solar/wind may seem like better alternatives, they still have a large pollution footprint - just at a different point in the manufacturing process (especially solar).
Nuclear energy is a great resource, but it has been greatly tarnished by stupid and/or greedy fearmongering.
@Jilano climate change is only a major problem in and around areas with a heavy population, that's y southerners in the us have been traditionally resistant, all we see is the price of our work trucks going up at the cost their power and performance numbers.
To compound the problem we dont trust the government because we're still suffering from radiation they put in our soil and water back in the sixties.
I honestly think the battle to rejuvenate fission power in the West is lost. Luckily, wind and solar look like they'll get cheap enough quickly enough that we might just make it.
But what a lost opportunity. It is the safest (yes, including Chernobyl) and smallest land footprint power source we have, and even now, it is competitive in price with wind.
I am fairly confident that a lot of the environment anti-nuclear power activism over the last forty years was fomented by the fossil fuel industry.
@halfflat maybe so, thats the reason electric cars and solar/wind plants have caught so much hell as well. But that said, solar and wind plants don't run the risk of blowing up and endangering the lives of the people around it, most of which weren't given a choice of whether or not it should be put within close proximity of their home.
If the company building the thing wanted to offer to relocate nearby families or pay them the same stipend they do to their investors for staying, i wouldnt have a problem with it. But when do large companies thing about anyone other than their investors and profit margins? Especially when just simply paying off the liability claims of the few remaining survivors is a much, much cheaper approach.
@M1sf3t Straying somewhat, but the main reason solar and wind are deadly is that they are relatively low intensity power sources, and so the accident rate per GWh is high — just from manufacturing, installing and maintaining them.
I understand the concern about the risk to people living near a nuclear reactor in the case of an accident. Historically though, the observed risk is really low, and that risk is due to Chernobyl. Coal, by contrast, kills at astonishing 60 people per TWh of generated electricity, before we even consider the effects of climate change.
@halfflat Also, at coal plants isotopes get concentrated as the fuel is burned. These isotopes are radioactive. Because nobody is concerned about radiation or radioactive particles at a coal plant there is higher exposure. I have no idea if anyone has done studies to see if these particles cause cancer. They have cleaned up coal plants quite a bit though. So maybe somebody understood this.
Yup, coal is outright the worst way we are generating power at scale. We can add to the list: land use and environment contamination from coal tailings and fly ash landfill. And these heavy metals have a half life of forever.
@halfflat low risk or not, it can be really hard for someone to uproot themselves, especially with a family in tow, so personally i dont agree with putting them in unless you at least offer something to those that still think the risk is high enough that they don't want to be anywhere near it.
Large companies don't typically go that route tho, they pay off a few local officials and the officials grease up the wheels and get the project rolling to the point that they've already made too much of an investment for the government to step in and turn then back(why the government is forever coddling large companies that make bad investments is beyond me 🤷🏻♂️).
Even with the solar and wind plants adding additional hazards when it comes to installation and maintenance, we're talking about professionals who are well aware of what they're getting themselves into, not local citizens that didnt have a choice but to become victims of a disaster when the whole project went south.
Wait, are we talking about nuclear power or nucular power? ;-)
cst199223016dI think the concern about nuclear accidents is overblown. Look at hydrogen plant/tank explosions or chemical plant leaks. Are they not just accidents, and not deadly to the people around them?
@cst1992 that is a good point, but its still the same situation as the nuclear power plant, it's cheaper for the company to pay liability suits in the event of an accident than it is to relocate people or just find a more suitable location in general and because money is the thing that makes most governments go round, they're allowed to get away with it because the people that would be opposed don't typically have the money to fight it.
What's even more fucked up (US specific) is that if people did want to get together and try to fight it, they couldn't do so affectively without forming a taxpaying entity b/c most, if not all, types of nonprofit entities have restrictions placed on them when it comes to lobbying or electioneering.
Your Job Suck?
Take a quick quiz from Triplebyte to skip the job search hassles and jump to final interviews at hot tech firms
Get a Better Job