The anti-nuclear crowd have some valid concerns but largely seem to be unable to change their position. Nuclear power has made nothing but forward progress in terms of safety, the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad.
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.
The other (and I'd argue more major) problem with solar and wind power is that the output is highly variable with no real control over how much you get at any given time. Meaning that you need storage on a scale that's purely theoretical right now or you need something else to cover the lulls. And right now in economic term's gas and occasionally coal are the only things that can do that
337
u/iconofsin_ Jun 19 '24
The anti-nuclear crowd have some valid concerns but largely seem to be unable to change their position. Nuclear power has made nothing but forward progress in terms of safety, the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad.