Aresen wrote: Warren wrote:Atomic Humanism as Radical Innovation: Michael Shellenberger's Keynote to American Nuclear Society, 2017
Given by an industry spokesman, with resulting myopic POV. But it's a good timeline of the anti-nuke movement over the decades. I don't share his optimism over the current political climate (npi), but he's not wrong when he says
Only nuclear can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment. Nothing else — not coal, not solar, not geo-engineering — can do that.
I'm just not sure there's a limit to how much evidence of wrongness a popular belief can persist in the face of.
The anti-nuke greenies are not concerned about the safety of nuclear power. They have already made up their minds on that: Nuclear energy is dangerous, now and forever. No amount of evidence will change that conviction. They will play constantly on people's fears and on nimbyism to block nuclear power at all costs.
I am convinced this will also be carried over to fusion power should the ITER project prove successful.
10 years away!
I'm nowhere near as high on nuclear power as, well, pretty much any of you. I think it takes a lot of willfully disregarding the accidents that have happened, handwaving them away with "Oh well, soandso screwed that up, that wouldn't happen at OUR nuke plant" to ignore major disasters that have left large areas unfit for human habitation. And with the idea that "we only need nuclear power to save the world", then you have to realize that it won't be just nuke plants in the US and western Europe and East Asia. It'll be central Africa, the Middle East, South and Central America. A lot of places where graft and corruption is a lot bigger deal. And not just a couple plants. Dozens or hundreds.
To me it starts to get like those statistics that say that people are more likely to die due to a meteorite strike than just about any other reason. If you increase the number of nuke plants, I don't see it as a minor increase in the the chance for an accident. It takes a lot of belief to think that they'll all be well run, and well constructed, and well-looked after, and I think that a lot of that belief would be misplaced.
Could more nukes be a welcomed part of transitioning away from burning dead things for energy? Yes, I think they could and should. But as "Hey, just replace everything with nukes and it'll be awesome!", no.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."