[UltraSane]

That just goes to show how incredibly short sighted humanity is. We new about the risk of massive CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels but just ignored it while irrationally demonizing nuclear energy because it is scawy. If humans were sane and able to plan earth would be getting 100% of all electricity from super-efficient 7th generation nuclear reactors.

[mbernstein]

When talking to my parents, I hear a lot about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome as far as the fears of nuclear power.

She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous"

https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%....

CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three of which are a bit safer than hydro (still very safe).

[chgs]

She’s two thirds right. It’s slow and expensive.

[Retric]

I agree costs could have dropped significantly, but I doubt 100% nuclear was ever going to happen.

Large scale dams will exist to store water, tacking hydroelectric on top of them is incredibly cost effective. Safety wise dams are seriously dangerous, but they also save a shocking number of lives by reducing flooding.

[valval]

There was adequate evidence that nuclear is capable of killing millions of people and causing large scale environmental issues.

It’s still not clear today what effect CO2 or fossil fuel usage has on us.

[UltraSane]

Nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs. Nuclear reactors are very safe on a Joules per death bases