←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.45230060[source]
I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
replies(25): >>45230185 #>>45230223 #>>45230479 #>>45230658 #>>45230757 #>>45231144 #>>45231518 #>>45231738 #>>45232518 #>>45232615 #>>45232756 #>>45232757 #>>45232937 #>>45233169 #>>45233513 #>>45233762 #>>45233817 #>>45233825 #>>45234181 #>>45234637 #>>45234828 #>>45235394 #>>45238856 #>>45240108 #>>45243016 #
flohofwoe ◴[] No.45230185[source]
> most long lasting

...which also applies to nuclear waste unfortunately, and that answers part of your question - e.g. as irrational as it may be, but at least in Germany nobody wants to have a nuclear waste storage in their backyard (the other part of the answer is Chornobyl - and for the same 'not in my backyard' reason).

Also when looking at recent years, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have a few large nuclear power stations in the middle of Europe, see the 'hostage situation' around the Zaporizhzhia NPP.

replies(4): >>45230240 #>>45230572 #>>45231295 #>>45231756 #
Paradigma11 ◴[] No.45230572[source]
If we already have to take care of a hole in some mountain for the next few hundred years, why not put 100 times the waste in it?

Nobody would notice the difference.

replies(2): >>45230760 #>>45231587 #
1. pjmlp ◴[] No.45230760{3}[source]
I think Hollywood will remember of something.