Nuclear power plants won’t help solve the climate crisis.
They take too long to build.
While the risk of a catastrophic failure is very low, its effects are so bad they can’t be included in any sensible risk assessment.
They prolong the dependence on energy companies that are too big to fail and can therefore blackmail the government.
They depend on enormous amounts of water for cooling, at a time when rivers frequently get too warm for that due to climate change.
They run on a non-renewable fuel source that is imported from politically instable countries.
And when you include the cost of building them, insuring them, dismantling them and dealing with their waste, they’re simply not economical.
The only way to run them is with massive subsidies and unconditional securities from the state. I.e. tax money being funnelled to big corporations.
How long from “design concept” till enough are tested, certified and built to help combat climate change? We have about 20 years left to transform our energy sector if you’re optimistic. Building one with the old proven design takes about 15 years.
Wtf are you talking about? Nuclear power facilities are freaking huge and have top notch security. You ain’t getting anywhere near any place you could ever do any damage. And since everybody who’s supposed to be there needs clearance, it’s easy to have strict security protocols in place. Anybody who isn’t supposed to be there or takes anything in or out they aren’t supposed to is identified easily and taken care of.
Any nuclear facility is more worried about espionage than any kind of attack. Even if you are able to bomb a part of it, worst case it will be shutdown for repairs for a while and maybe kill a dozen or so people who are near the bomb as it goes off. Something like a crowded square in a city centre is a much easier target for terrorism and probably has more impact in the causing fear department than bombing some energy facility.
So no, denying nuclear power based on fear of terrorism isn’t only unfounded, it’s also exactly what the terrorists want. Fuck them guys, don’t give in to fear.
And in case you don’t know: a nuclear power plant is not a nuclear bomb, it can’t become a nuclear bomb and it doesn’t contain any materials to create a nuclear bomb. Just because they both contain the word nuclear and work on a fission principle, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
(I blame the recent Chernobyl series for fueling the fear of nuclear once again. You should know that whilst it is a good series, it is not a documentary and they dropped the ball hard on all the science parts)
Yes military targets, as are most energy production facilities. Any part of critical infrastructure is a prime military target. Just ask the people of Taiwan.
This has nothing to do with terrorism and certainly isn’t a reason not to build them. Whatever replacement you have for them, would then become the target. This is common sense.
I would also say that being energy independent is a deterrent to all out war, as it removes leverage one party may have over another. With a balanced field of power, total war becomes less likely.
Also by the time Western Europe / Mainland US is under military assault and our allies can’t protect our critical infrastructure, we have much bigger concerns.
Honestly if the UK can spend a couple of decades with half a hiroshimas worth of high explosives sitting unguarded within sight of London I think a nuclear facility with actual security will be fine.
Nuclear power plants won’t help solve the climate crisis.
They take too long to build.
While the risk of a catastrophic failure is very low, its effects are so bad they can’t be included in any sensible risk assessment.
They prolong the dependence on energy companies that are too big to fail and can therefore blackmail the government.
They depend on enormous amounts of water for cooling, at a time when rivers frequently get too warm for that due to climate change.
They run on a non-renewable fuel source that is imported from politically instable countries.
And when you include the cost of building them, insuring them, dismantling them and dealing with their waste, they’re simply not economical.
The only way to run them is with massive subsidies and unconditional securities from the state. I.e. tax money being funnelled to big corporations.
deleted by creator
How long from “design concept” till enough are tested, certified and built to help combat climate change? We have about 20 years left to transform our energy sector if you’re optimistic. Building one with the old proven design takes about 15 years.
Source? I’d say the median is closer to 8, 15 years is more like the worst 5-15% percentile.
deleted by creator
But there are solutions that simply require building more small units of something that’s been built in large numbers for the past decade.
deleted by creator
I’m talking about solar panels and wind turbines.
deleted by creator
nuclear power plants are way too vulnerable and dangerous of a terrorist target.
Wtf are you talking about? Nuclear power facilities are freaking huge and have top notch security. You ain’t getting anywhere near any place you could ever do any damage. And since everybody who’s supposed to be there needs clearance, it’s easy to have strict security protocols in place. Anybody who isn’t supposed to be there or takes anything in or out they aren’t supposed to is identified easily and taken care of.
Any nuclear facility is more worried about espionage than any kind of attack. Even if you are able to bomb a part of it, worst case it will be shutdown for repairs for a while and maybe kill a dozen or so people who are near the bomb as it goes off. Something like a crowded square in a city centre is a much easier target for terrorism and probably has more impact in the causing fear department than bombing some energy facility.
So no, denying nuclear power based on fear of terrorism isn’t only unfounded, it’s also exactly what the terrorists want. Fuck them guys, don’t give in to fear.
And in case you don’t know: a nuclear power plant is not a nuclear bomb, it can’t become a nuclear bomb and it doesn’t contain any materials to create a nuclear bomb. Just because they both contain the word nuclear and work on a fission principle, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
(I blame the recent Chernobyl series for fueling the fear of nuclear once again. You should know that whilst it is a good series, it is not a documentary and they dropped the ball hard on all the science parts)
hehehe, plane goes boom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack#:~:text=Nuclear reactors become preferred targets,%2C occupations%2C invasions and campaigns.
Yes military targets, as are most energy production facilities. Any part of critical infrastructure is a prime military target. Just ask the people of Taiwan.
This has nothing to do with terrorism and certainly isn’t a reason not to build them. Whatever replacement you have for them, would then become the target. This is common sense.
I would also say that being energy independent is a deterrent to all out war, as it removes leverage one party may have over another. With a balanced field of power, total war becomes less likely.
Also by the time Western Europe / Mainland US is under military assault and our allies can’t protect our critical infrastructure, we have much bigger concerns.
Honestly if the UK can spend a couple of decades with half a hiroshimas worth of high explosives sitting unguarded within sight of London I think a nuclear facility with actual security will be fine.
This highlights issues with using capitalism and some human mindsets