• Nightwatch Admin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    In all the famous cases, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Sellafield, it was close enough to a real disaster. Sure, only some people died, some more got radiation poisoning, cancer, even more lost their pets, their homes, their livelihoods, quite some animals died… thank god that’s “low on the harmless scale”.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thing is, most types of power generation have some kind of issue. Of the cleaner options, hydro, tidal, and geothermal can only be built in select places; solar panels create noxious waste at the point of manufacture; wind takes up space and interferes with some types of birds. Plus, wind and solar need on-grid storage (of which we still have little) to be able to handle what’s known as baseline load, something that nuclear is good at.

      Nuclear is better in terms of death rate than burning fossil fuels, which causes a whole slate of illnesses ranging from COPD to, yes, cancer. It’s just that that’s a chronic problem, whereas Chernobyl (that perfect storm of bad reactor design, testing in production, Soviet bureaucratic rigidity, and poor judgement in general) was acute. We’re wired to ignore chronic problems.

      In an ideal world, we would have built out enough hydro fifty years ago to cover the world’s power needs, or enough on-grid storage more recently to handle the variability of solar and wind, but this isn’t a perfect world, and we didn’t. It isn’t that nuclear is a good solution to the need for power—it’s one of those things where all the solutions are bad in some way, and we need to build something.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      And don’t forget the trillions and trillions it has already cost and will cost in the future to clean this shit up. But that gets paid by the taxpayer, so that’s OK, right?

      • Nightwatch Admin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Exactly. There’s a reason no insurance company wants to take on nuclear power plants and countries have to.

        • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          In Germany, the state paid for all the research and development and then gave it to the companies for free. Then they massively subsidised the construction of the plants. Then the private companies got to reap the profits while the plants were running. And now the government is stuck with the bill for decommissioning. Totally not a racket.