Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cepheus42 t1_j3qam8n wrote

Reply to comment by Super-Lychee8852 in Solar and wind is ugly, Nuclear is the only other safe energy. When will it happen here? by drdanagram

> A poorly designed plant with even more poorly trained staff over 40 years ago.

Yet you said "it can't happen here." When we pointed out it DID happen here, you suddenly changed your tune and now want to say "well, it won't happen again."

Spoiler alert: it WILL happen again.

You see, the problem with nuclear is not "can we do it safely?" Because the answer to that is "sure." The problem needs to be framed as "WILL we do it safely?" And as long as America is bought and paid for by corporate interests, that answer will always be FUCK NO, because they will do everything they can to shave corners and cut costs, and safety is always one of the first things they renege on. Either we have to hold their feet to the fire to ensure they meet all safety requirements, in which case no corporation will ever bother to build another nuclear power plant in this nation because it won't be profitable enough, or we have to let them do it "their way," which will be a fucking shit show for communities where these things are built.

Nuclear came, and it went. Move on. You want all the "beauty" of nuclear with none of the drawbacks? Go geothermal. We have enough untapped geothermal energy to supply the entire world for centuries, and we're not investing in it at all.

16

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3qcbs5 wrote

It will not happen again and even that scenario was fairly minor all things considered. Expensive mistake but preventable and studies show it had very little effect on the people and land.

We have 54 plants, 92 reactors currently operating in the US that have proven their safety.

Geothermal is far too expensive and limited in use. Has to be placed in very specific locations and is only really feasible in the west.

Nuclear is extremely efficient especially calculating in waste material and the amount of space needed.

−4

IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5trd wrote

>It will not happen again and even that scenario was fairly minor all things considered.

What a wet noodle of a response. Let's add a few more qualifiers to your statement and pretty soon nuclear waste will be safe to put into the cereal bowl.

3

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3ur78r wrote

What makes you think that industry can be trusted to handle nuclear waste safely when it has demonstrated without fail that it will choose the cheapest option and hide the potential harm resulting from shortcuts and failures?

1

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3urp3y wrote

It's not the fault of the industry but actually the politics around it. Most 1st world countries greatly utilize nuclear and recycle it into a secondary fuel.

1

Temponautics t1_j3u3sbo wrote

It's all a matter of probabilities. Even if there is only a 0.0001% chance for any nuclear waste facility to fail in a given month, ... we are talking about thousands of months of waste storage. There simply is no comparison between the threat of nuclear waste versus the environmental threat from a wind turbine or solar panel. This debate is done and dusted. Find a county where people vote in their majority for having a nuclear power plant built vs combined wind and solar. Good luck with that.
There is a reason nuclear energy fails in public polling time and again. It is not because people are uninformed. It is because people are not stupid enough to fall for this BS again.

0