←back to thread

Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

(arstechnica.com)
425 points nixass | 1 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pinacarlos90 ◴[02 Apr 21 18:39 UTC] 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 ◴[02 Apr 21 18:46 UTC] 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 #
throwawayboise ◴[02 Apr 21 18:50 UTC] No.26674612[source]▶
"Believe the science" seems to be the rationale for many other things we are told to do, so why not this?
replies(3): >>26674731 #>>26674755 #>>26675176 #
1. kergonath ◴[02 Apr 21 19:02 UTC] No.26674755[source]▶
You’re missing the last bit, though. It’s “believe the science, when the science agrees with my ideas”. The truth is, a lot of those people claiming IPCC should be listened to conveniently ignore the bits in the IPCC reports that don’t align with their opinions. Also, nobody has time to read the reports and spend years training to actually understanding them.

We are overall woefully uninformed about these things, to the point that the majority of people in some recent opinion polls in Europe believe that nuclear power plants emit greenhouse gases.