←back to thread

425 points nixass | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pinacarlos90 ◴[] No.26674447[source]
There is a bad stigma associated with nuclear energy that I just don’t understand - Nuclear less impact to the environment when compared to other energy sources. What is is the problem with nuclear? Is it the cost of maintaining these power plants ?
replies(11): >>26674500 #>>26674513 #>>26674514 #>>26674523 #>>26674541 #>>26674577 #>>26675060 #>>26675306 #>>26675329 #>>26675491 #>>26676134 #
ethbr0 ◴[] No.26674541[source]
Highly publicized 80s accidents (Three Mile Island in 79, Chernobyl in 86) coupled with late-Cold War anti-nuclear weapons proliferation protesting resulted in environmentalists lumping everything nuclear together until it reached "No" criticality.

After that, the reaction has been self-sustaining.

It's easy to campaign to tear something down. It's hard to be the one who has to rebuild the replacement. We need people who focus on the latter before the former.

replies(2): >>26674612 #>>26674693 #
noja ◴[] No.26674693[source]
Don't spread FUD. Fukushima was ten years ago.

The truth is our systemic desire to cut costs cuts corners. Everything after each disaster will have been "obvious".

The price of the tiniest of mistakes is outweighing the advantage.

Stick a power plant in the middle of nowhere and charge batteries with it if you want to convince people.

replies(2): >>26674739 #>>26674791 #
1. cthalupa ◴[] No.26674739[source]
... Did you just accuse someone of spreading FUD when they're specifically arguing for people to be less afraid?

Fukushima was bad, but even if you count the deaths from the poorly handled evacuation, you're at ~2200 people that died because of it.

Coal kills 13,000 people in just the US /every/ year.