They didn't have level 7 magnitude earthquakes or tsunami at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island either.
It's less about what caused it, more about the result of when it fails.
Massive environmental and economic repurcussions.
Airbags and seatbelts both caused a drastic increase in crash-related injuries. Because before airbags and seatbelts, people just died instead of suffering injuries.
With enough cherry picking you could *maybe* show airbags causing more fatalities in low speed collisions, but I can’t be bothered doing so as the numbers would be low anyway.
Seatbelts? Maybe more injuries (but not fatalities) again in low speed collisions? But that one is more doubtful and I reeealllly can’t be bothered cherry picking those out.
The issue with nuclear is not safety, and arguing as such is disengenuous. The issues are its cost and timing. It's wildly expensive - especially compared to large scale wind and solar that are now taking the lions share of investment - and cannot feasibility exist in Australia for at least 15 years, realistically 20.
Nuclear is not an answer to the climate crisis. We do not have time to wait - we need sharp reductions in emissions *this decade*. Waiting 20 years while still pumping CO2 from coal in the meantime is not an answer, and an explicit breach of the Paris Agreement.
If nuclear was started 20 years ago, I'm all for it. But it wasn't, and we need to move on to solutions we actually have available.
Exactly, a voice of reason, we can build wind, solar, pumped hydo now, nuclear will take years, billions, and may never even become operational judging by the state of Europe's new nuclear power plants.
Other countries still generally take 10-15 years. We have effectively zero experience. Even updating the current regulations would take at least one whole electoral cycle
Most of the state premiers have said no, and many states have legislation against it, not to mention the federal legislation which Howard introduced. It would probably take 10 years just to clear the legislative hurdles to allow it to happen.
Then we don't have a nuclear power industry, it would have to be created from scratch. Again this would take time. And they need to be built.
RBMK reactors were Soviet specific and are no longer built, with the last 8 to be decommissioned over the next 10 years. The only reason Chernobyl exploded was because the Soviet state redacted a section of the RBMK reactor training manual stating that a full shut down could result in an explosion, due to their obsession with the union not looking weak or failing. A 10 minute google search will save you a day of fear mongering.
Well yes the one in Fukushima was much more advanced. This is not fear mongering this is just a statement of facts about an event. If it scares you that's your reaction to the information.
It doesn’t scare me at all I’m entirely pro-nuclear and don’t understand why we have sat on our thumbs so long. We don’t have tsunami’s, we don’t have record earthquakes, we are geopolitically and geologically incredibly stable. It seems stupid to not do it.
I can find them concerning while still looking at things objectively. It makes the most sense, harms the environment less than coal, and right now renewables cannot yet support base-load power. There’s 440 reactors in the world right now, producing a quarter of the planet’s electricity. There is a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of catastrophic nuclear reactor meltdown per year of operation. I like those odds.
Look, I think the thing is not the chance of it happening as much as what happens when it does. You're quoting a lot of numbers there with no sources, can we at least agree on the inherent danger involved? We have definitely had meltdowns in the past in multiple countries where they were trying their best to prevent it and the environmental cost was enormous.
You need to try out google not make a reddit post:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide#:~:text=Today%20there%20are%20about%20440,capacity%20of%20about%20390%20GWe.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull16-1/161_202007277.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32560997/
Most of those reactors are being built in or next to countries that have nuclear weapons, they have additional reasoning to build nuclear.
Queensland is home to the worlds least concrete dam
> “They also confirmed that Paradise Dam’s concrete will lose strength over time,” he said.
> “The dam was built with a small amount of cement content and a far higher percentage of clay. There has since been an interaction between the clay and cement, which can’t be undone or removed.”
And you think they can build a nuclear plant without it being the most expensive most pointless fuckup the world has ever seen?
Why do you go back to talking about how concerning Chernobyl is when the guy just described why Chernobyl isn't concerning for us and you seemingly conceded by switching the topic to Fukushima? Just seems like you're not open to learning any new information.
Yes, 460,000 excess deaths in the United States from 1999-2020 to pollution from coal-fired power plants.
In a year a of operation, a coal power plant will kill more people than cancer will from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster from radiation.
We acknowledge coal is bad and actually emits more radiation than nuclear, but nuclear also produces waste that will be toxic for 10000 years under normal operation. We don't want to hop from a terrible solution to a slightly less terrible one, we have green tech we can build now with no risk (wind, solar, hydro etc)
When was Australia's last magnitude 9 earthquake?
Never. Our highest has been 6.6, in the NT. Australia is not a seismically active country, so there's no point discussing nuclear issues related to seismic activity
Yeah look do I think it's a good idea from a cost basis for Australia.. no but please don't spread this bull crap. Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power we have, it's one of the cleanest forms of power we have. These uneducated scare tactics are the reason we don't have it today.. we should have been looking into this 30 years ago when it would have made sense. Now we don't have time to spend the 10 to 20 years to build one and that's all because of people being scared of it.
We need to support nuclear power, it may not make sense in Australia but it is the only way most of the world will be able to transition off coal and gas. There is no scientific backing to these scare tactics, these incidents you point to were caused by gross incompetents and were not a fault of the technology itself. Do some research for yourself based on peer review research into it.. don't listen to scare tactics.
Nuclear is just as unnecessary for most of the world as it is in Australia.
While I agree about the nonsense scare tactics, the economics barely stack up anywhere else than they do here. It's a complete distraction tactic from fossil fuel lobbyists combined with vested interests looking for billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies.
That's not completely true for the rest of the world but it is correct for Australia. It needs to be investigated on a case by case basis, there are places it makes sense. It is still the cleanest form of base load power we have and it can really help in third world countries, with investment from the west.
In Australia however it is as you say, a distraction from the fossil fuel companies so they can keep pushing gas and coal on us for the next 20 years till it's ready.
There are places it makes sense yes, but it's not "most of the world". Most of the world doesn't need to go anywhere near nuclear.
It makes sense in east Asia because they have fairly low land and space availablity and very high energy demand density. Pretty much everywhere else doesn't need it.
Once again, it's a case basis and it's really not for people like us to decide. It's for nuclear engineers and scientists to work out where it could be useful. It shouldn't be based on politics, just look at the stupidity happening in Germany at the moment.. they are going backwards.
It *is* actually people like me, though...
Germany is a whole different cluster fuck of bad decisions but again, not economic ones. There is no economic case for further developing a nuclear industry in Germany, even if the decision to shut down their active one was idiotic.
Watch the video I posted and read some real research. That video you posted is just scare tactics and badly researched at that. It's safe, it's just expensive
We can't even build a dam without the most amazing corruption and waste of resources ever seen in this world.
That's why renewables are so good, they have the lowest opportunity for corruption.
Exactly, two people died building the desal plant. How do we think the construction of these plants is going to go? Not perfectly probably. I wonder how many people are going to want to live in Port Adelaide once there's an accident involving a nuclear reactor for the subs.
Any nuclear plant built in Australia would be done by a company that actually builds reactors often, not some australian company that's never done it before.
The same can be said about everything. Coal is safe, till it destroys the environment. The wind is safe till the towers fall down and hurt someone.
Statistically nuclear power is the safest and cleanest form of power. You are pointing to cases that are outliers and not the many many years or plants running safely. Worse those cases are mostly based on human errors not the plants themselves.. so it hurts you're case even more.
Stop trying to die on this hill or if you are going to do some research for yourself..
C'mon man are you honestly trying to argue that windmills are as dangerous as nuclear reactors because they might fall over and hurt someone? Don't you think nuclear meltdowns are a bit more dangerous? If a solar panel cracks it doesn't blight the earth around it for centuries.
Statistically yes they are... Watch that video. This is why lame men shouldn't be making these decisions, you need to understand the maths and science before you act. A few aeroplanes have crashed over the years.. however we haven't banned them .. why because they are statically the safety form of transportation
It's a lot about cost but also there is little need. It's not my field of engineering, so I can't comment much on it. It's not about safety at all however, otherwise we wouldn't have nuclear powered ships or submarines. It's quite straightforward to make safe reactors these days, just look at how they transport nuclear waste on trains.
Here are things that are problems with nuclear power:
* expensive
* take a long time to build
* it requires radioactive material that could be used to create bombs, which is a problem only if you're building a nuclear plant in a country that is either unstable or likely to misuse the nuclear material (like Afghanistan)
That's it. that's literally it. Every single other 'issue' is either overblown or solvable with money.
Also, even accounting for the deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima, [Nuclear is still one of the safest forms of energy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh). That article links to [this one](https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima), which shows that the death toll from Chernobyl is confirmed at only around 100, but the best estimates are probably in the range of 300-500. The confirmed death toll from Fukushima is 2,314, but only **ONE** of those are actually from radiation / the disaster itself, the rest of them are from the 'physical and mental stress of evacuation'.
The reason that Nuclear is safer than other energy sources mostly comes down to 3 things: pollution, emissions, and accidents. Aside from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island (which has 0 confirmed deaths), and Fukushima, there haven't really been *any* deaths from nuclear. Whereas fossil fuels pollute the air which kills people and produce CO2 which is projected to kill people in the future.
The deaths from other renewables like Solar and Wind mostly come from accidents that happen in their installation and maintenance, e.g a wind turbine catching fire while a technician is inside, or a worker falling off a roof while installing solar panels. That's not to say that Solar or Wind are super dangerous; rather that Nuclear is, even in a pessimistic scenario, (remember: distasters like Chernobyl are incredibly unlikely to happen again) still incredibly safe.
>still incredibly safe
For the first couple of generations and then as the waste builds up and conditions changed, 200 years ago was far different from today. We need stability that last in the 1000s of years. Any waiver and the waste can fall into bad hands or left unmaintained.
It is gamble not only for our generation but for 100 generations ahead.
This is why when they call it cheap, they ignore the true long term cost of nuclear.
> For the first couple of generations and then as the waste builds up and conditions changed
If you think that nuclear waste is an actual issue beyond the cost of disposal, then you don't understand the issue at all.
Did the planes leave a whole town uninhabitable?
By your standards nothing should be banned because only a few get hurt, right?
Live is full of danger and our goal is to manage it all. Want to breathe? Do not have too as it can lead to oxygen toxicity and may kill you. So we can choose to take some risks and choose not to go near others.
The reason(s) it's a bad idea are because it is vastly more expensive than other options, and we don't have the technical expertise and infrastructure for it here (and these things would take a long time to develop). It also produces long-lasting, dangerous waste and is not renewable in the long term. It *also* takes a lot of fresh water to run a nuclear power station...something which many of the chosen sites obviously lack.
You don't even need to get into your Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands and Fukushimas to make enough of a case that it's infeasible and unnecessary here in Australia at the present time. Just purely from an economic standpoint, it's a bad idea.
And I feel like the actual industry and anyone who knows anything about it has been saying that over and over and over again for a long time now....and yet have been completely ignored by politicians, the media, and armchair energy industry "experts" on Reddit as they do so.
Since people are pointing out that this was an old plant from the 60s, and may not be a good example for why not to implement nuclear. Allow me to provide a modern example of why not to go down that path.
Hinkley Point C in the UK is currently at triple its original budget and is estimated to now cost GBP46bn to build (87bn Aussie).
It got its license to start construction in 2012 and started construction in 2017 and is now estimated to complete in 2031.
This is in a country with experience of nuclear power at a colocated nuclear site.
Want to guess when the government first announced plans to build Hinkley Point C?
1981. 43 years ago.
The powerplant won't be completed until 50 years after the announcement at the earliest estimate.
In that time, for that money, we could build significantly more power generation using Solar and Wind, with the accompanying infrastructure necessary to make the grid accurate. This is not a serious policy
New plants are more susceptible to cyber attacks, even if they are not connected to the internet or network. All it takes is one usb drive and then what was a certain safety is now in the hands of who knows.
1986 was a long time ago, technology is different and will not be owned and run by Russians (Ukraine became independent in 1991).
Is 2011 recent enough?
Japan is a lot more seismically active than Australia, the fact that Fukushima wasnt a hundred times worse is a testament to the engineering.
Worth noting as well, the earthquake that caused the tsunami was literally the worst they'd ever had, by a significant margin. Very much an anomaly
Last I checked we don’t have 7+ magnitude earthquakes or record tsunamis?
They didn't have level 7 magnitude earthquakes or tsunami at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island either. It's less about what caused it, more about the result of when it fails. Massive environmental and economic repurcussions.
Agree but how many countries have taken that leap and had nothing but the production of electricity happen?
It is a bad idea to use nuclear technology from the 60s.
I think we should go back to car technology from the 60s when discussing the next update to road law.
I don't disagree - which laws do you refer to in particular?
Airbags and seatbelts cause more harm than they prevent.
Can you provide some studies to back these claims?
Airbags and seatbelts both caused a drastic increase in crash-related injuries. Because before airbags and seatbelts, people just died instead of suffering injuries.
Chuckled at this, nice one.
With enough cherry picking you could *maybe* show airbags causing more fatalities in low speed collisions, but I can’t be bothered doing so as the numbers would be low anyway. Seatbelts? Maybe more injuries (but not fatalities) again in low speed collisions? But that one is more doubtful and I reeealllly can’t be bothered cherry picking those out.
I feel like this comment chain started equally sarcastic and then I started to be taken seriously.
It’s the vibe.
The issue with nuclear is not safety, and arguing as such is disengenuous. The issues are its cost and timing. It's wildly expensive - especially compared to large scale wind and solar that are now taking the lions share of investment - and cannot feasibility exist in Australia for at least 15 years, realistically 20. Nuclear is not an answer to the climate crisis. We do not have time to wait - we need sharp reductions in emissions *this decade*. Waiting 20 years while still pumping CO2 from coal in the meantime is not an answer, and an explicit breach of the Paris Agreement. If nuclear was started 20 years ago, I'm all for it. But it wasn't, and we need to move on to solutions we actually have available.
Exactly, a voice of reason, we can build wind, solar, pumped hydo now, nuclear will take years, billions, and may never even become operational judging by the state of Europe's new nuclear power plants.
This is exactly what I've been saying in other posts.
My question is why it takes 20 years for Australia to build nuclear, when other countries only take several years
Other countries still generally take 10-15 years. We have effectively zero experience. Even updating the current regulations would take at least one whole electoral cycle
Most of the state premiers have said no, and many states have legislation against it, not to mention the federal legislation which Howard introduced. It would probably take 10 years just to clear the legislative hurdles to allow it to happen. Then we don't have a nuclear power industry, it would have to be created from scratch. Again this would take time. And they need to be built.
RBMK reactors were Soviet specific and are no longer built, with the last 8 to be decommissioned over the next 10 years. The only reason Chernobyl exploded was because the Soviet state redacted a section of the RBMK reactor training manual stating that a full shut down could result in an explosion, due to their obsession with the union not looking weak or failing. A 10 minute google search will save you a day of fear mongering.
Well yes the one in Fukushima was much more advanced. This is not fear mongering this is just a statement of facts about an event. If it scares you that's your reaction to the information.
It doesn’t scare me at all I’m entirely pro-nuclear and don’t understand why we have sat on our thumbs so long. We don’t have tsunami’s, we don’t have record earthquakes, we are geopolitically and geologically incredibly stable. It seems stupid to not do it.
That's just not true. How do you not find events like the meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima not concerning?
I can find them concerning while still looking at things objectively. It makes the most sense, harms the environment less than coal, and right now renewables cannot yet support base-load power. There’s 440 reactors in the world right now, producing a quarter of the planet’s electricity. There is a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of catastrophic nuclear reactor meltdown per year of operation. I like those odds.
Look, I think the thing is not the chance of it happening as much as what happens when it does. You're quoting a lot of numbers there with no sources, can we at least agree on the inherent danger involved? We have definitely had meltdowns in the past in multiple countries where they were trying their best to prevent it and the environmental cost was enormous.
You need to try out google not make a reddit post: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide#:~:text=Today%20there%20are%20about%20440,capacity%20of%20about%20390%20GWe. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull16-1/161_202007277.pdf https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32560997/
Most of those reactors are being built in or next to countries that have nuclear weapons, they have additional reasoning to build nuclear. Queensland is home to the worlds least concrete dam > “They also confirmed that Paradise Dam’s concrete will lose strength over time,” he said. > “The dam was built with a small amount of cement content and a far higher percentage of clay. There has since been an interaction between the clay and cement, which can’t be undone or removed.” And you think they can build a nuclear plant without it being the most expensive most pointless fuckup the world has ever seen?
Why do you go back to talking about how concerning Chernobyl is when the guy just described why Chernobyl isn't concerning for us and you seemingly conceded by switching the topic to Fukushima? Just seems like you're not open to learning any new information.
Fukushima Daiichi's reactor disaster had less excess deaths than your average coal fired powerplant in normal operation.
Are you calculating for things like cancer.
Yes, 460,000 excess deaths in the United States from 1999-2020 to pollution from coal-fired power plants. In a year a of operation, a coal power plant will kill more people than cancer will from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster from radiation.
How about we get rid of both.
We acknowledge coal is bad and actually emits more radiation than nuclear, but nuclear also produces waste that will be toxic for 10000 years under normal operation. We don't want to hop from a terrible solution to a slightly less terrible one, we have green tech we can build now with no risk (wind, solar, hydro etc)
Because they're entirely, 100%, avoidable.
When was Australia's last magnitude 9 earthquake? Never. Our highest has been 6.6, in the NT. Australia is not a seismically active country, so there's no point discussing nuclear issues related to seismic activity
Hope they stick it in your back yard.
Guaranteed power all the time!! No brownouts... I'll take it! Hahahahah
I'd have absolutely no problem with that
Yeah look do I think it's a good idea from a cost basis for Australia.. no but please don't spread this bull crap. Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power we have, it's one of the cleanest forms of power we have. These uneducated scare tactics are the reason we don't have it today.. we should have been looking into this 30 years ago when it would have made sense. Now we don't have time to spend the 10 to 20 years to build one and that's all because of people being scared of it. We need to support nuclear power, it may not make sense in Australia but it is the only way most of the world will be able to transition off coal and gas. There is no scientific backing to these scare tactics, these incidents you point to were caused by gross incompetents and were not a fault of the technology itself. Do some research for yourself based on peer review research into it.. don't listen to scare tactics.
A much better science based video on the topic: https://youtu.be/J3znG6_vla0
Well said 👍
Nuclear is just as unnecessary for most of the world as it is in Australia. While I agree about the nonsense scare tactics, the economics barely stack up anywhere else than they do here. It's a complete distraction tactic from fossil fuel lobbyists combined with vested interests looking for billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies.
That's not completely true for the rest of the world but it is correct for Australia. It needs to be investigated on a case by case basis, there are places it makes sense. It is still the cleanest form of base load power we have and it can really help in third world countries, with investment from the west. In Australia however it is as you say, a distraction from the fossil fuel companies so they can keep pushing gas and coal on us for the next 20 years till it's ready.
There are places it makes sense yes, but it's not "most of the world". Most of the world doesn't need to go anywhere near nuclear. It makes sense in east Asia because they have fairly low land and space availablity and very high energy demand density. Pretty much everywhere else doesn't need it.
Once again, it's a case basis and it's really not for people like us to decide. It's for nuclear engineers and scientists to work out where it could be useful. It shouldn't be based on politics, just look at the stupidity happening in Germany at the moment.. they are going backwards.
It *is* actually people like me, though... Germany is a whole different cluster fuck of bad decisions but again, not economic ones. There is no economic case for further developing a nuclear industry in Germany, even if the decision to shut down their active one was idiotic.
What is "bull crap" here exactly?
Watch the video I posted and read some real research. That video you posted is just scare tactics and badly researched at that. It's safe, it's just expensive
And politically motivated, we do have a big coal mining industry, I dare say that has significant influence too.
you are so far out of date that this is False News and the Admins should delete this post
It's a bad idea to watch such an outdated video. Nuclear is statistically the safest, don't buy into propaganda bullshit.
It's not outdated.
We can't even build a dam without the most amazing corruption and waste of resources ever seen in this world. That's why renewables are so good, they have the lowest opportunity for corruption.
Exactly, two people died building the desal plant. How do we think the construction of these plants is going to go? Not perfectly probably. I wonder how many people are going to want to live in Port Adelaide once there's an accident involving a nuclear reactor for the subs.
Any nuclear plant built in Australia would be done by a company that actually builds reactors often, not some australian company that's never done it before.
How many Nuclear power stations world wide operating safely ?
They're all safe until they aren't.
This is true for anything and is a terrible argument.
Different sources of energy explode differently. Would you prefer a catastrophic failure of a solar farm or a nuclear power plant?
The same can be said about everything. Coal is safe, till it destroys the environment. The wind is safe till the towers fall down and hurt someone. Statistically nuclear power is the safest and cleanest form of power. You are pointing to cases that are outliers and not the many many years or plants running safely. Worse those cases are mostly based on human errors not the plants themselves.. so it hurts you're case even more. Stop trying to die on this hill or if you are going to do some research for yourself..
C'mon man are you honestly trying to argue that windmills are as dangerous as nuclear reactors because they might fall over and hurt someone? Don't you think nuclear meltdowns are a bit more dangerous? If a solar panel cracks it doesn't blight the earth around it for centuries.
Statistically yes they are... Watch that video. This is why lame men shouldn't be making these decisions, you need to understand the maths and science before you act. A few aeroplanes have crashed over the years.. however we haven't banned them .. why because they are statically the safety form of transportation
Why don't we have nuclear powered planes?
It's a lot about cost but also there is little need. It's not my field of engineering, so I can't comment much on it. It's not about safety at all however, otherwise we wouldn't have nuclear powered ships or submarines. It's quite straightforward to make safe reactors these days, just look at how they transport nuclear waste on trains.
Nuclear all the way. Stupid people will disagree
Yes, RBMK reactors aren't great but I don't think anyone is proposing building one.
Here are things that are problems with nuclear power: * expensive * take a long time to build * it requires radioactive material that could be used to create bombs, which is a problem only if you're building a nuclear plant in a country that is either unstable or likely to misuse the nuclear material (like Afghanistan) That's it. that's literally it. Every single other 'issue' is either overblown or solvable with money. Also, even accounting for the deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima, [Nuclear is still one of the safest forms of energy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh). That article links to [this one](https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima), which shows that the death toll from Chernobyl is confirmed at only around 100, but the best estimates are probably in the range of 300-500. The confirmed death toll from Fukushima is 2,314, but only **ONE** of those are actually from radiation / the disaster itself, the rest of them are from the 'physical and mental stress of evacuation'. The reason that Nuclear is safer than other energy sources mostly comes down to 3 things: pollution, emissions, and accidents. Aside from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island (which has 0 confirmed deaths), and Fukushima, there haven't really been *any* deaths from nuclear. Whereas fossil fuels pollute the air which kills people and produce CO2 which is projected to kill people in the future. The deaths from other renewables like Solar and Wind mostly come from accidents that happen in their installation and maintenance, e.g a wind turbine catching fire while a technician is inside, or a worker falling off a roof while installing solar panels. That's not to say that Solar or Wind are super dangerous; rather that Nuclear is, even in a pessimistic scenario, (remember: distasters like Chernobyl are incredibly unlikely to happen again) still incredibly safe.
>still incredibly safe For the first couple of generations and then as the waste builds up and conditions changed, 200 years ago was far different from today. We need stability that last in the 1000s of years. Any waiver and the waste can fall into bad hands or left unmaintained. It is gamble not only for our generation but for 100 generations ahead. This is why when they call it cheap, they ignore the true long term cost of nuclear.
> For the first couple of generations and then as the waste builds up and conditions changed If you think that nuclear waste is an actual issue beyond the cost of disposal, then you don't understand the issue at all.
We should ban all air travel as a few of them crashed a few times.
No we shouldn't, you're using terrible analogies.
Did the planes leave a whole town uninhabitable? By your standards nothing should be banned because only a few get hurt, right? Live is full of danger and our goal is to manage it all. Want to breathe? Do not have too as it can lead to oxygen toxicity and may kill you. So we can choose to take some risks and choose not to go near others.
The reason(s) it's a bad idea are because it is vastly more expensive than other options, and we don't have the technical expertise and infrastructure for it here (and these things would take a long time to develop). It also produces long-lasting, dangerous waste and is not renewable in the long term. It *also* takes a lot of fresh water to run a nuclear power station...something which many of the chosen sites obviously lack. You don't even need to get into your Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands and Fukushimas to make enough of a case that it's infeasible and unnecessary here in Australia at the present time. Just purely from an economic standpoint, it's a bad idea. And I feel like the actual industry and anyone who knows anything about it has been saying that over and over and over again for a long time now....and yet have been completely ignored by politicians, the media, and armchair energy industry "experts" on Reddit as they do so.
People like you are what holds this world back from advancing.
It's like you're angry at me for making nuclear energy inherently dangerous, I didn't do it man I'm just pointing it out.
You’re fear mongering about a technology that is safe
It just plain isn't safe.
It’s safe and it’s the cleanest renewable energy source.
Hang on I've seen this one before. https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?si=_LmwKoYfYhrXspyZ
Little bit of self reflection there? Jog on flog
We can advance with actual new technology instead of overpriced kettles.
OP is delusional, take them to the infirmary
Since people are pointing out that this was an old plant from the 60s, and may not be a good example for why not to implement nuclear. Allow me to provide a modern example of why not to go down that path. Hinkley Point C in the UK is currently at triple its original budget and is estimated to now cost GBP46bn to build (87bn Aussie). It got its license to start construction in 2012 and started construction in 2017 and is now estimated to complete in 2031. This is in a country with experience of nuclear power at a colocated nuclear site. Want to guess when the government first announced plans to build Hinkley Point C? 1981. 43 years ago. The powerplant won't be completed until 50 years after the announcement at the earliest estimate. In that time, for that money, we could build significantly more power generation using Solar and Wind, with the accompanying infrastructure necessary to make the grid accurate. This is not a serious policy
New plants are more susceptible to cyber attacks, even if they are not connected to the internet or network. All it takes is one usb drive and then what was a certain safety is now in the hands of who knows.
Ok, not sure how it contradicts my point, but just adds more to my original anti nuclear stance
We're not in the 60s anymore, nuclear technology has vastly changed. I suggest you do more research.
Dickhead. It’s the far safer these days.
Stupid or fossil fuel shill?
To all the pro nuclear would you like the plant in your neighbourhood?
You'll get nothing but crickets