|
|
|
|
|
|
by arcticbull
1400 days ago
|
|
|
> This is not true for nuclear energy: even very remote bystanders unwilling to take the risk are majorly exposed. Nah. We're all responsible for the choice. That's how democracy works. > No, given the RBMK architecture the positive void coefficient isn't a major flaw. The results speak for themselves. The data on nuclear speaks for itself. Even Fukushima alone in isolation was one of the safest power plants we have, and it was the second worst nuclear disaster in history. |
|
|
> Nah. We're all responsible for the choice. That's how democracy works.
If citizens directly decide upon a given subject then a referendum about nuclear energy is necessary. In nearly all nations there was none. Therefore we aren't all directly responsible.
In practice elected people decide, and in Western democracies they theoretically bar the majority from oppressing any minority ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority ).
However it could not work this way for nuclear energy because dismissing concerns (about safety, about dangerous waste long-term effects...) is sufficient and was easy: at first by declaring that all those reactors are under control, that any real problem is so highly improbable there is no real risk. Nuclear experts convinced many politicians.
This stance was tainted after each mishap (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima...), and the approach mutated into minimizing the effects of mishaps. However less and less politicians were willing to take the risk.
Renewables then began to gain traction, as more and more citizens and politicians see them as adequate and alleviating many challenges (risk, waste, dependency towards uranium...), and renewables quickly gains terrain while nuclear is more and more stuck.
The new approach is to pretend that renewables aren't adequate due to their intermittency, albeit many studies and existing technologies do offer efficient ways to compensate it.
The effect on democratic nations' choices will be clear in 5 to 10 years. However in such a context whatever the result will be pretending that we will all be responsible for it is IMO highly debatable.
>> No, given the RBMK architecture the positive void coefficient isn't a major flaw.
> The results speak for themselves.
I repeat: each and any existing nuclear reactor car suffer a meltdown, this is absolutely not specific/proper to RBMK. Moreover there is no perfect containment, in some configurations they may isolate the reactor for only a few days.
> The data on nuclear speaks for itself
It highly depends upon which data one considers, in other terms which ones are describing reality.