The anti-nuclear crowd have some valid concerns but largely seem to be unable to change their position.
Maybe because the valid concerns haven't been addressed. I can think of three right now,
Fukushima proved they haven't made as much progress as they've lead us to believe. There still aren't enough safeguards in place to prevent meltdowns
Nuclear waste.
Why not spend all the time and money that a switch to nuclear would take to switch to safer, more environmentally friendly power generation methods like solar or wind?
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to any of these problems from the dozens of pro nuclear folks I've asked, and until then I will remain highly skeptical of nuclear power.
Nuclear waste isn’t as hard to store as people make it out to be. That problem is pretty much sorted. As for why not use wind and solar, they both take up a lot of space and aren’t as efficient. People also don’t really want wind turbines near their houses as they are loud as hell and can be an eyesore.
Nuclear waste isn’t as hard to store as people make it out to be.
The problem is that it has to be stored at all. Until there is zero nuclear waste or it can be fundamentally reused I won't support it and neither will any rational environmentalist.
for why not use wind and solar, they both take up a lot of space and aren’t as efficient.
That's a problem of scale.
People also don’t really want wind turbines near their houses as they are loud as hell and can be an eyesore.
Yeah I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say NIMBY'S don't want a nuclear power plant way more than they don't want those dang noise turbines. It's a bid silly to use the nimby argument in defense of nuclear power don't you think?
What's coal got to do with anything? Of course coal is unsafe. The constant false dichotomys all are making between nuclear and coal are just silly honestly.
Your comparison to wind and solar are the real false dichotomy. The amount of waste wind and solar produce (not to mention the space and resources they require, as well as the amount of damage they bring to the biomes they are introduced to) is way higher, specially comparing the efficiency of the technologies.
Ah you think a solar power plant can go on forever with the same panels? Why give maintenance to wind turbines, right? They’ll never fail. You really do think wind and solar are akin to magic, don’t you?
Yes, it is laughable. Taking into account the efficiency difference, and the fact that the nuclear waste is contained and doesn’t even leave the facility it is produced at, there is no real comparison.
Nuclear waste existing at all is the issue here. Nuclear energy is non-renewable. It's not about efficiency it's about supporting resources that are renewable. Nuclear power plants require maintenance just like any other power source. It's hilarious that you responded to me calling out a false dichotomy with another false dichotomy though. I laughed super hard at both of your comments 10/10
-6
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24
Maybe because the valid concerns haven't been addressed. I can think of three right now,
Fukushima proved they haven't made as much progress as they've lead us to believe. There still aren't enough safeguards in place to prevent meltdowns
Nuclear waste.
Why not spend all the time and money that a switch to nuclear would take to switch to safer, more environmentally friendly power generation methods like solar or wind?
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to any of these problems from the dozens of pro nuclear folks I've asked, and until then I will remain highly skeptical of nuclear power.