Why are people so anti-nuclear power?

[Fuiking]

And yet they seem strangely oblivious (or outright in denial) of the enormous drawbacks of fossil fuels. Just because it doesn't go boom in one second and kills some people doesn't mean it doesn't kill A LOT MORE people in the long run. Global warming is one of the most dangerous threats to human existence, and yet people are happy to point fingers at Chernobyl and Fukushima as the chimneys behind them go on their merry way.

No one is saying nuclear power doesn't have dangers, but any evidence we have says that it's EXTREMELY safe overall. People have already brought up the plane crash comparison, and it's very apt - 100 people dying in a plane is a very emotional image that sears itself into your mind, while the fact that 100 people A DAY die in automobile accidents in the USA alone is blissfully ignored (37,461 deaths in 2016 according to the NHTSA).

Nuclear power is a very volatile issue in the public eye, and the debate is heated and not very informed. Publicity is the key word here. Things like Germany pulling out of nuclear power completely looks good on TV, but where do people think the power is going to come from now? Surely not solar plants and wind farms, those are far, far away from providing enough to meet the demand.

Then reduce the demands for it. Because im not going to live within 100km of an exploded nuclear plant... So will you adopt me? No?

[Jshadowhunter]

How many people died from that? Like, less than 100? How much energy have we gotten from the hundreds of nuclear reactors that have been built? Whatever the actual number is, I'm pretty sure it was worth it.

Meanwhile, literally 1.25 million people die from cars every year. I highly doubt you're not driving around in cars. That makes you a hypocrite.

Radiation sickness is a really horrible way to go and it's slow. oh and it made the city uninhabitable.

[Santti]

Modern nuclear power plants are apparently quite safe and clean, so I'm all for more. Assuming they are cost-effective, that is.

[Elim Garak]

Radiation sickness is a really horrible way to go and it's slow. oh and it made the city uninhabitable.

So? The death toll is rather small, no, tiny even - total up to this moment. Compared to millions of deaths yearly caused by rather mundane incidents.

[vipers]

In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water."<1> Despite copious quantities of waste, the DOE has stated a goal of cleaning all presently contaminated sites successfully by 2025.<1> The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards."<1> The United States has at least 108 sites designated as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres.<1><2> DOE wishes to clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult and it acknowledges that some may never be completely remediated. In just one of these 108 larger designations, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, there were for example at least "167 known contaminant release sites" in one of the three subdivisions of the 37,000-acre (150 km2) site.

How long until it decays to "safe" levels.

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).<23> Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management in order to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.<24> Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.<25>

[Wikiy]

Because they are intelligent enough to consider the enormous drawbacks of nuclear power? And because they know recent history.

Oh, and why do you think scientists (and I mean non-nuclear scientists, physicists and non-physicists alike) hugely favour nuclear energy. Because they're stupid?

[caervek]

There are two main reasons people are against nuclear power:

1: They don't understand it.
2: There were problems with it 50 years ago.

That's pretty much it, none of the routine arguments against it are valid anymore because they relate to older/obsolete designs. I.E accidents like Chernobyl/Fukushima (designs from the 50s/60s respectively) are not just unlikely but impossible at a modern plant.

The big problem is that because nuclear power covers a family of technology not just a single technology people who don't understand it cannot see past that, which is kind of lol as they are essentially saying the equivalent of "electric cars like the Tesla are bad for the environment because the '66 Mustang was!", completely different technology.

[Wikiy]

Then reduce the demands for it. Because im not going to live within 100km of an exploded nuclear plant... So will you adopt me? No?

A nuclear plant can't explode...

[Biomega]

Then reduce the demands for it.

Yes, let's just reduce the global demand for power overnight. 20% in the US. 40% in Sweden. 50% in Belgium. 70%(!) in France. You think that's something you can just tackle with LEDs and turning off the light when you leave?

Don't get me wrong, reduced energy consumption/increased consumption efficiency are definitely something that should be done more, promoted more, and invested in more. Absolutely on board. But it's not a quick fix, and it runs alongside a rapidly growing increase in overall consumption simply due to more users and uses (think of things like electric cars).

Of course in an ideal world we'd simply transition completely to renewable energy, with wind farms on every shore and solar arrays beaming down from orbit. No doubt it'll happen - in a 100 years or so. But we can't wait that long on the status quo, and just hope global warming takes it easy on us while we keep going with fossil fuel. And we'll HAVE TO if nuclear power is just done away with.

Nuclear power is not the perfect solution in the very long-term, but it's the best solution by far that we have for the short and medium term. Not an exclusive solution, but one that can (and perhaps should) carry the bulk of the weight as the rest catches up.

Because im not going to live within 100km of an exploded nuclear plant... So will you adopt me? No?

And I assume YOU would gladly adopt someone whose island was annihilated by a storm exacerbated by global warming? Or a Chinese coal miner dying of black lung to provide the fossil fuel that's in such rampant demand? And how many more are there, directly or indirectly affected by fossil fuels - compared to the extremely few and extremely isolated incidents where nuclear power caused environmental catastrophes? It's the plane crash analogy all over again.

Radiation sickness is a really horrible way to go and it's slow. oh and it made the city uninhabitable.

Same goes here. "Horrible and slow" is tragic and it is flashy - that doesn't mean it's inherently more deplorable than MAGNITUDES more people dying more subtle and more insidious deaths due to global warming. Also, directly dying from radiation sickness is VERY rare, and is in most cases not at all related to nuclear power but rather other uses of nuclear material (mostly medical/industrial waste that's mishandled). The long-term consequences of accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are not radiation sickness, but secondary effects from exposure to radiation such as increased incidence of certain types of cancer. While regrettable to be sure, the numbers simply pale in comparison to other dangers and deaths that we accept readily as everyday occurrences. Where's the outrage for THOSE people? You could pick any number of highly preventable deaths with staggeringly higher numbers and equally repulsive consequences - but the word "nuclear" just makes things all the more spooky and generates more attention than dysentery or tuberculosis (each of which cause MILLIONS of deaths each year and are almost entirely curable or preventable, if people cared enough to do so).

[Rudkobing]

This is the reason.

[Vash The Stampede]

It's the most efficient source of energy we have to this day and the most reliable, so why are so many people against it?

We can increase the efficiency tenfold, if not more, from the same amount of fuel compared to old reactors if we would build new ones today. We could develop reactors that can use the waste of the reactors today as fuel. We could reduce the waste to only last centuries instead of millennia.

Unlike solar or wind energy, nuclear power is far more reliable and does not rely on good weather conditions to produce power.

Renewable energy relies on battery tech which will stabilize it and make it more reliable. Battery tech is the future of any energy source today. Also renewable is getting reliable enough that governments have laws to prevent people from setting up their own personal power source. In some areas you can't even cut off the wire to your home coming from the grid. It's illegal to have renewable energy at your home without being connected to the grid. Seems reliable enough if the lobbyists have already altered laws to keep their energy business alive.

Also there's Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuff said.





- - - Updated - - -

I don't see what nuclear weapons have to do with using nuclear power for producing energy to your countries industries and homes.

Cause the byproduct of nuclear power is what's used to make nuclear weapons. Why you think they were against Iran for having nuclear power?

[vipers]

A nuclear plant can't explode...

[Zazajin]

For me personally? There was a lot of sheep born with birth defects in the farm opposite my house growing up due to the radiation from Chernobyl and it making me worry about the powerplant nearby.

[Easo]

because of ignorance and cultural propaganda against it. nuclear power is the best, cleanest power source for the masses that we have.

This and once more this.
It is not perfect, sure, yes, we still have a lot of older plants thorough the world which are not up to the current standards, but overall? Yep.
Cold fusion would be amazing, but most likely I will be dead by the time it becomes reality.

[Dsonsion]

(videos)

Neither of those is a proper nuclear explosion. Here you go, a regular power plant exploding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQQr...nnyBravoVideos
It happens more often in coal-powered plants than it does in nuclear plants and it causes a higher death toll.

[Osmeric]

It's the most efficient source of energy we have

What does that statement even MEAN? Most thermally efficient? That's wrong -- the efficiency of LWR-based powerplants at converting thermal energy to work is actually pretty bad.

to this day and the most reliable, so why are so many people against it?

It's too expensive.

We can increase the efficiency tenfold, if not more, from the same amount of fuel compared to old reactors if we would build new ones today. We could develop reactors that can use the waste of the reactors today as fuel. We could reduce the waste to only last centuries instead of millennia.

Lack of fuel isn't the Achilles Heel of nuclear; capital cost is. Yes, we could do those things. They would make that big problem worse, not better. Making the reactor more expensive to save on cheap fuel is being penny wise, pound foolish. Ditto for waste destruction -- even if disposal of nuclear waste were completely free it wouldn't make nuclear competitive.

(This is also why nuclear fusion is such a mindbogglingly stupid idea. It makes fission look like a bargain in comparison.)

Unlike solar or wind energy, nuclear power is far more reliable and does not rely on good weather conditions to produce power.

It does, however, require very large forced transfers of financial burden to customers who aren't allowed to say "no".

[breadisfunny]

five words for you. chernoybyl, three mile island, fukishima.

[snplisk]

capital cost is.

Unfortunate but true. Only real impediment to nuclear is upfront cost, especially in western nations.

[vipers]

Neither of those is a proper nuclear explosion. Here you go, a regular power plant exploding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQQr...nnyBravoVideos
It happens more often in coal-powered plants than it does in nuclear plants and it causes a higher death toll.

explosion itself is nothing compare what comes after it on nuclear explosion


Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-bo...m-cancer/20908

[Deleted]

It's the most efficient source of energy we have to this day and the most reliable, so why are so many people against it?

We can increase the efficiency tenfold, if not more, from the same amount of fuel compared to old reactors if we would build new ones today. We could develop reactors that can use the waste of the reactors today as fuel. We could reduce the waste to only last centuries instead of millennia.

Unlike solar or wind energy, nuclear power is far more reliable and does not rely on good weather conditions to produce power.

Did you ever hear about Chernobyl, Long Island and Fukushima?
And that the nuclear waste takes some 100,000 years to decay, requiring humanity to always be present to prevent the storage containers from falling apart and leaking?