d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Conservatives And Coal
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 3,381
Joined: Nov 24 2012
Gold: 1,300.00
Feb 3 2021 02:00am
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 2 2021 09:18pm)
From a general stance, I'd tend to agree. However, how do you get past all the fear associated with meltdowns?

Further, given the power companies want new plants to be completely subsidized by the public, yet the companies pocket all the profit, how do you pass that hurdle after calming fears?

While nuclear power being expanded would be super, I just don't see how we can realistically increase it beyond what we have today.



I feel like we are already past the point of no return as far as fear of nuclear goes, there are already a bunch of reactors around the world that would destroy our planet if they melt down.

This post was edited by UmadLoL on Feb 3 2021 02:03am
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Feb 3 2021 02:08am
Quote (UmadLoL @ 3 Feb 2021 00:00)
I feel like we are already past the point of no return as far as fear of nuclear goes, there are already a bunch of reactors around the world that would destroy our planet if they melt down.


...and there's the fear I'm referring to. There's no reactor that would "melt the world". The area of impact is relatively small, and there are plenty of desert-type areas that could easily support a reactor if we decided we wanted them. From NM to AZ to Eastern Oregon. Yes, you need water, but we're talking containment tanks, not fresh water.

Meh, not getting into it. Let's just say it's not hard to find a safe solution where even if there IS a meltdown, it won't be a big deal, beyond the immediate risk to those specifically working there.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2021 02:14am
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 3 2021 02:08am)
...and there's the fear I'm referring to. There's no reactor that would "melt the world". The area of impact is relatively small, and there are plenty of desert-type areas that could easily support a reactor if we decided we wanted them. From NM to AZ to Eastern Oregon. Yes, you need water, but we're talking containment tanks, not fresh water.

Meh, not getting into it. Let's just say it's not hard to find a safe solution where even if there IS a meltdown, it won't be a big deal, beyond the immediate risk to those specifically working there.


I mean, the world has had three nuclear incidents. Chernobyl which was decades ago under the USSR. Three Mile Island in which all of the safety steps worked perfectly, and Fukushima which required a tsunami and an earthquake at the same time to cause an issue.

Overall they've got a good record
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Feb 3 2021 02:19am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 3 Feb 2021 00:14)
I mean, the world has had three nuclear incidents. Chernobyl which was decades ago under the USSR. Three Mile Island in which all of the safety steps worked perfectly, and Fukushima which required a tsunami and an earthquake at the same time to cause an issue.

Overall they've got a good record


Aye, agreed. Add on top of that thousands of worldwide nuclear weapons tests and a few dozen or even hundred *mostly* green reactors more or less aren't going to have an impact.

But... And it's a really hard BUT... Fear. How do you satisfy the citizens of Portland for example, that the reactor in their state, even if it's 200 miles away in the plains desert, isn't an immediate threat? Do they understand that the meltdown impact radius is likely less than a mile or two, assuming the 1 in 10 million odds against a meltdown rolls the wrong way?

I do not expect people to be reasonable.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 3 2021 02:20am
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2021 02:21am
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 3 2021 02:19am)
Aye, agreed. Add on top of that thousands of worldwide nuclear weapons tests and a few dozen or even hundred *mostly* green reactors more or less aren't going to have an impact.

But... And it's a really hard BUT... Fear. How do you satisfy the citizens of Portland for example, that the reactor in their state, even if it's 200 miles away in the plains desert, isn't an immediate threat? Do they understand that the meltdown impact radius is likely less than a mile or two, assuming the 1 in 10 million odds against a meltdown rolls the wrong way?

I do not expect people to be reasonable.


Money and time for public education. That's really all you can do
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Feb 3 2021 02:24am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 3 Feb 2021 00:21)
Money and time for public education. That's really all you can do


In favor of Oregon's education system, Nuclear is actively taught as the most viable green power. It has been for 30 years. Alternatively, a few days on why nuclear is great, vs the impacts of nuclear bombs, nuclear meltdowns, and the impacts of radiation poisoning as an every year part of the curriculum from like 3rd grade through college...

It's not that we're undereducating regarding nuclear power. It's that we're overeducating regarding the risks of nuclear technology.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll