Is the public's aversion to nuclear power a mistake, or is the fear of nuclear catastrophe justified even compared to using polluting energy?
41-45, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Northwest · M
The public's aversion was justified, post 3 Mile Island, and then Chernobyl.
The technology we were using was dangerous, and prone to mega catastrophes.
The backlash from 3 Mile Island, set us back, and the US pretty much froze major nuclear development for 30 years.
The good news, is that we now have a clean hybrid nuclear solution, with no "out of control" scenarios to worry about, and no waste storage issues to be concerned about. The technology also does not require the building of mega-plants, and no ugly smoke stacks are needed.
The real problem is that we're now behind, and it takes 10-15 years to get started, given all the required environmental/safety work that needs to be done. But if we wait, the delta will still be 10-15 years, so we need to get started now.
The technology we were using was dangerous, and prone to mega catastrophes.
The backlash from 3 Mile Island, set us back, and the US pretty much froze major nuclear development for 30 years.
The good news, is that we now have a clean hybrid nuclear solution, with no "out of control" scenarios to worry about, and no waste storage issues to be concerned about. The technology also does not require the building of mega-plants, and no ugly smoke stacks are needed.
The real problem is that we're now behind, and it takes 10-15 years to get started, given all the required environmental/safety work that needs to be done. But if we wait, the delta will still be 10-15 years, so we need to get started now.
@Northwest There has been incidents yes, but if we refuse to learn from them and walk away from this technology, the it was really a loss. Learn and be better.
CelestiaStella · 22-25, F
It's primarily drawn from the image of the Chernobyl accident. Detractors of nuclear power point to Chernobyl as an inevitable consequence of using it while ignoring that it was triggered by deliberate mishandling of a safety test, (ironic, huh?) and also that those RBMK reactors, despite being slapped together quickly with the engineering equivalent of duct tape and super glue, have a track record of being solidly reliable. Chernobyl genuinely was a freak accident and not indicative of nuclear power as a whole.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend like nuclear power is perfect though. It has it's own raft of problems. Getting it's fuel is difficult and environmentally damaging, refining uranium is complicated and dangerous, what do we do with the waste, etc etc. These things don't negate the fact that nuclear power is by far and away the richest source of electricity that we have.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend like nuclear power is perfect though. It has it's own raft of problems. Getting it's fuel is difficult and environmentally damaging, refining uranium is complicated and dangerous, what do we do with the waste, etc etc. These things don't negate the fact that nuclear power is by far and away the richest source of electricity that we have.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment