Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors?
We're all to die then, if we're to believe that letting climate change take its course is better than the occasional nuclear meltdown.
> Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately so far and there is no evidence that this is about to change.
How else are they to fill their pockets with wealth taxed via inflation if there are no crises? There must always be a crisis looming to get people to part with their wealth.
> Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal.
Leadership knows full well that this is a fact. Think about that.
> Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors?
The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits, and it's simply better all around to invest into energy sources which aren't as reliant on flawless management or execution to avoid catastrophic failure modes.
It's like with cars vs. airplanes. Most people learned to live with the comparatively high risk of driving a car, yet often have a (silent) fear of flying Boeing/Airbus even though they are much safer. Psychological effect of high-profile airplane accidents vs. small scale (but much more numerous) car deaths.
The list of e.g. hydroelectric accidents is very long and deadly, but they are not as "spectacular". How many people are aware of Banqiao Dam failure, which killed 250 000 people and with that single-handedly exceeded the death toll of all nuclear accidents combined?
There's actually several studies of energy sources and their "deaths per TWh" and nuclear usually comes out as the safest.
> It's like with cars vs. airplanes. Most people learned to live with the comparatively high risk of driving a car, yet often have a (silent) fear of flying Boeing/Airbus even though they are much safer.
I don't feel this is a serious comparison, let alone conveys the tradeoffs that need to be considered.
The risk on the table is pretty much the NIMBY rationale: if you're arguing about risks and given that it's unthinkable to presume that there is zero chance of experiencing problems on any type of power plant, do you prefer to deal with a technology whose failure mode does not have any significant impact or do you wish to deal with a technology whose failure modes involve the need to create and manage exclusion zones with a radius of dozens of km which persist for decades on end? This is particularly relevant as we consider that the bulk of energy demands come from densely occupied urban regions.
And regarding safety, this sort of risk assessment stats used to push Nuclear as a safe alternative fails to take into account the strategic importance of a power plant and how they are automatically targets in any national security scenario. Thus extrapolating peace time statistics, which are already quite bad, also fails to adequately classify the full risks of relying on nuclear.
Let me spell it out: more people will die and suffer if we don't support nuclear. There is no way to fix it with renewables. It would just waste the time and amplify the damages.
Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious.
Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion.
> [...] although nobody has died or is expected to die from radiation effects [of Fukishima].
The number of deaths related to Nuclear accidents doesn't even exceed the single-digit thousands, and after Chernobyl the number of deaths related to other accidents doesn't even exceed 20.
On the other hand, virtually every globalist governmental entity (if we're gonna go by appeals to authority and majority here) believes that climate change will soon be related to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.
> Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
So no, the migration away from nuclear doesn't close the case on why places like California moved away from nuclear.
There could be a Chernobyl every year and, if we are to believe the likes of the WHO and the UN, it still wouldn't approach the number of deaths resulting from climate change.
> Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious.
It's one thing to state that you personally believe in something. It's an entirely different thing to try to pass off a personal opinion and baseless assertions as some kind of established consensus, particluarly as they fly in the face of reality.
> Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion.
It presents solid enough cases to motivate the current global phase-out of Nuclear power.
And, unlike the GP's personal assertion, it does provide a rationale based on facts and real-world experience assessed and considered by decision-makers.
If you have a genuine curiosity about the subject and you're interested in getting up to speed on the topic, you may start by reading up on this as well.
> It's one thing to state that you personally believe in something. It's an entirely different thing to try to pass off a personal opinion and baseless assertions as some kind of established consensus, particluarly as they fly in the face of reality.
That's exactly what you are doing. To be honest, I can't tell if you're serious because all you are doing is making statements and then just linking to pages without citing any particular fact.
> If you have a genuine curiosity about the subject and you're interested in getting up to speed on the topic, you may start by reading up on this as well.
If you had a point to make, it wouldn't take someone reading a whole page to compare what is essentially two arguments around quantitative figures. You'd be able to state a counterargument with some form of rationale. Just linking to a page and telling me to "get started" by "reading up" doesn't cut it. This is a discussion forum, and it's really not polite to just tell people they are wrong and not explain why. Nobody has time to read an entire encyclopedia entry to figure out why you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> That's exactly what you are doing. To be honest, I can't tell if you're serious because all you are doing is making statements and then just linking to pages without citing any particular fact.
No, not really. You might feel the need to ignore any of the sources I've cited, or even try to refute anything mentioned in them, but you can't pretend that the facts I've pointed out are baseless or even personal assertions.
This sort of position is particularly undefendable considering that you're purposely turning a blind eye to the baseless and completely unrealistic assertion that sparked this thread.
So,if you have any intention of actually discussing the topic, please stick to the facts instead of playing games trying to shift burdens away from your claims.
> If you had a point to make, it wouldn't take someone reading a whole page (...)
Please don't try to pretend that well-supported and referenced facts are free to be ignored just because you either don't like them or prefer to ignore them.
The summation of what you are saying is that I am wrong because lots of people with power made an opposing decision and that I should just read a Wikipedia page because reasons.
That's asinine. I could just as easily give you an Amazon listing for an entire book making a case for nuclear energy, tell you to just read that without giving an explanation of why, and that really wouldn't be much different from what you are telling me. It proves nothing.
Why are you even on HN if you want to avoid real discussion? Do you know why I and nearly everyone else here includes snippets from the pages they link to? It's because no one has time to read that shit if they have no context.
Can you even make a single point to back up your position? What you've shared is barely even a citation; a citation is usually in tandem with a piece of information or an abstract of the source being cited. You shared a hyperlink. Goodie for you.
You know what, I don't even really care if you are right because you wrote as if I'm a dunce who should "get started" learning about the facts around the subject. Are you kidding me? You turned a blind eye to my points and then have the gall to say imply I'm ignorant because you have a Wikipedia page? You're being a total jerk.
Instead of reducing what I said to a "personal opinion" that I am trying to "pass off" that is "baseless", you could have respectfully disagreed even without a reason and included that Wikipedia page, and there was a chance I might have read it. But you had to be a jerk. If you still don't get this, then you're on the wrong website.
That page simply describes how the environmental case against nuclear power was made before climate change began to be taken seriously.
If we didn’t have to worry about the impacts of climate change, I’d agree with phasing out nuclear.
But we do.
“These pieces of criticism have however largely been quelled by the IPCC which indicated in 2014 that nuclear energy was a low carbon energy production technology, comparable to wind and lower than solar in that regard.[135]”
At the point in time I think I am really ambivalent about nuclear Energy. Its not just Chernobyl but Fukushima incident that illustrates how minuscule error in our calculation can create a debacle. As more countries starts to enjoy nuclear energy the risk will further increas. And Imo the main problem is we can't even control the nuclear meltdown waste and whole world might have to suffer the consequence which can be problematic (One example I can remember is how China was complaining when Japan decided to release those waste nuclear water).
Is there guarantee way to construct safe nuclear plant? I am asking because I don't know the state of arts regarding nuclear power plant (I have started to hear about Thorium and don't know about safety and google is not the friend here unfortunately). If there are natural disasters etc., is nuclear plant robust against meltdown? Can we calculate the risk before hand?
A blanket assertion that "drawbacks far outweigh benefits" with no rational argument behind it is not helpful in this discussion. The article you are replying to makes the case that it is, and while you have a right to disagree, and are even welcome to go ahead and make your case, you are not adding any value to this discussion by saying "clearly this is wrong" and just leaving it at that.
We're all to die then, if we're to believe that letting climate change take its course is better than the occasional nuclear meltdown.
> Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately so far and there is no evidence that this is about to change.
How else are they to fill their pockets with wealth taxed via inflation if there are no crises? There must always be a crisis looming to get people to part with their wealth.
> Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal.
Leadership knows full well that this is a fact. Think about that.