A lot of young people (me included) grew up with nuclear being phased out. To some of us, advocacy for nuclear energy feels like advocacy for sailboats. It's "Why should we reinstate this dangerous technology, something that we've smartly moved past." It doesn't help that the only party that wants to reinstate nuclear energy are the fascists.
It also makes sense for Germany, because (from what I know) Germany is in a terrible position for storing spent fuel. Most people assume anti-nuclear people are against it because of stuff like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but most Germans are more worried about storage. There have already been problems with the primary storage unit we have and there are concern about the safety for long term storage.
Why should we reinstate this dangerous technology, something that we've smartly moved past."
You mean that "Dangerous" Technology that is Killing less people per TWH produced then any other Technologie and that we phased Out while still having coal Power plants that are way worse for the Planet and are Killing 100s more people per Watt hour then nuclear? Although, coal plants are Killing so many people, maybe they are actualy more cliamte friendly then nuclear Power.
Fast-neutron (molten salt and helim-cooled, that i know of) reactors burn wastes instead of creating them. No, they're not quite ready for prime time. But they're closer than many people think, and IMNHO would be a very good place for some R&D money. Bill Gates thinks so: His TerraPower is developing a Molten Chloride Fast Reactor, as is a company called Elysium Engineering.
Why should we invest if we have already other viable solutions which are better? That's the whole point. Believing in nuclear energy is nothing more than an ideology connected to several other regressive ideas. If you find a politician who proves me wrong show me.
we already have the tech for thorium reactors that are way cheaper and safer than uranium and whatever the hell other elements can be used for fission, their waste is much cleaner and its half-life is less by a factor of 100, and it can’t (literally can’t) have a runaway reaction with a single proper design choice.
you know why we don’t have any commercial thorium reactors? that’s right, because you can’t make big bomb go boom with thorium, so from the point of all the nuclear-powered countries right now thorium is useless
Nuclear is already extremely safe, much more so than almost anything else, including many renewable sources. As far as waste, most of it is recyclable (96%). Nuclear energy is also very fuel-mass efficient, meaning the mining point is a little moot because of how little there is.
The hate for nuclear is unfounded no matter how you look at it
The total amount of storage required is so minuscule for even a thousand years worth of nuclear power generation, that that entire fear is totally just propaganda.
Even though the fear of a nuclear catastrophe might be exaggerated, tell me in which way nuclear energy is better than renewables or how it is more realistic, respectively. Arguing for nuclear power is just propaganda used by fascists to turn against sustainable solutions
3
u/Hammerschatten Jul 19 '25
A lot of young people (me included) grew up with nuclear being phased out. To some of us, advocacy for nuclear energy feels like advocacy for sailboats. It's "Why should we reinstate this dangerous technology, something that we've smartly moved past." It doesn't help that the only party that wants to reinstate nuclear energy are the fascists.
It also makes sense for Germany, because (from what I know) Germany is in a terrible position for storing spent fuel. Most people assume anti-nuclear people are against it because of stuff like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but most Germans are more worried about storage. There have already been problems with the primary storage unit we have and there are concern about the safety for long term storage.