Non-game topic: Nuclear power

So I thought this might be a fun topic to talk about. The issue of nuclear power.

What do you think of nuclear power in general? Do you think it has potential? Do you think that it has a future? Do you think they have a better alternative?
Are you worried about nuclear power plants now? Would you live near one? What about nuclear cemeteries?

And so on.

I myself have a bit of an axe to grind regarding this topic, but I'd like to hear what others have to think.

Ok, I'll bite. I'd like to see nuclear power be explored fully. I'm not necessarily sure that the current methodologies are the best ones, but they seem to be reasonably safe and efficient.

What it really comes down to, we need to solve the energy crisis. Period. And I think if we don't explore every reasonable alternative to its fullest, we'd be negligent.

So...what's your axe?

The one that I aim to chop the anti-nuclear crowd with.

They insist that single facility that was incredibly bad, old and unsafe even by its own country's standards reflects the entire industry and technology. They also willingly and utterly ignore proper literature and expertise on the subject, acting on rabid stereotypes rather than facts. They overrate small risks and emphasize risks that are ridiculous, point to old and broken examples to base their claims and ignore any strides, innovations, precautions made or already taken. Not that they would admit that of course.

That alone might not be the problem. The problem is, that everyone takes them seriously, regardless how much intellectual merit or even substance their arguments has.

I'd be the first to admit that nuclear technology isn't 100% safe and is not without its issues. But I also admit that it isn't like a reactor blows up every year either and even so-called "alternative" sources are 100% safe either nor are they without their issues. It is actually very much safe to say that nuclear power is safer than existing cole/oil heat power plants. The technology has matured very much over the years and has become cheaper, safer yet more powerful.

Here we have an energy source that gives very little carbon emissions, that does not rely on a dwindling resource and one that has progressed several generations after its invention. Yet politicians and even some experts (never actual experts of the technology, mind you) act as if it isn't an option.

The reason? Any politician knows that if they openly support nuclear power, they won't be popular enough to win the next election.

So most people on the subject either focus on an unproven, semi-existing technologies that barely have their first generation or last-century heat/oil power plants that are contributing to a global problem. The solution that would combine the advantages of both rarely deserve a footnote, if that.

It's just stunning that here is a solution, or at least a big part of the solution, to the problem yet it is opposed, repulsed and shunned at every turn, regardless of its merits. It's like watching a gardener that can't decide whether to weed with a shovel or pickaxe but thinks hoes are evil.

Let me give you an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOI-Va5aU3U

Watch it. That's Greenpeace's TV ad. It might be a bit old but it portrays my point nicely.

If you don't want to watch, let me summarise it nicely: Tell your voted politician that you don't want nuclear power plants supplying you with electricity because they might drive a plane into it!

Nevermind the fact that the dome of a nuclear reactor is stronger than a military-grade bunker and is even capable of sustaining the nuclear materials even in the event of a plane crash. Nevermind that due to the nature of the dome's shape, the plane would likely to slew away from it rather than hit it directly. Nevermind the fact that there has never been any terrorist organization that has directly attacked a nuclear power plant (with the ironic exception of environmentalists). Nevermind that even during 9/11 terrorists openly flew over nuclear power plants when they had the chance, preferring public targets. Nevermind the fact that landing a 747 is a very different task than landing it into skyscraper. Nevermind the fact that since 9/11 it is almost impossible to hijack a plane.

No, all the benefits of a nuclear power plant are outweighed by a incredibly remote possibility of an unlikely catastrophe!

This isn't some backwater lunatic's opinion. This is Greenpeace's opinion, one of the biggest environmental organizations of the world.

Or, here's another:

RTGs as in Radioisotope Thermal Generators. Don't be deceived by their long name their task is rather simple.

These devices use (highly-radioactive) Plutonium-238 to generate heat and trough a special semi-conductor technology, electricity. This is actually a relatively old technology.

The Voyager series used these as well as every single probe sent to the outer solar system. The Mars Science Lab will use such a system as well and that will be the last use of this proven technology by NASA. Why?

Because reprocessing is illegal under presidential edict (I think, it should be looked up however it is definitely outlawed). Plutonium-238 is made, not mined or purified. The last batches of this valuable material was given by Russia (those stinking commies eh?). Without this, there will be no more RTGs.

The only alternative energy source in space is solar panels. Solar panels are groovy, especially in space where there is no atmospheric weakening of the sunlight, but cannot replace RTGs. You can forget virtually any mission in the outer solar system.

This is all because of badly-done edict by a president looking for the popular vote and every single president since then too afraid to erase it

The fact that there was a protest to every single launch of any RTG-related mission did not help either, neither do papers written by individuals claiming unprecedented catastrophe despite NASA's own research into the subject.

I have debated with environmentalists about this. They all resort to classic arguments, repeated over and over, filled with implications that do not make sense and the rapid switching of goalposts. I show them fact and I only get aversion, the switching of goalposts and vague reference and this was among the more intelligent crowd.

So, I am sick and tired of this f-ing ludditism. I am sick and tired of half-cooked arguments, the scaremongering, the lies, the propaganda, the naive proposals, the rapid insistence, the severely out-of-date propaganda, the ignorance of the subject. I am sick of watching governments all over the world pretend that the technology does not exist. I am sick of watching the world dig itself a deeper hole and telling that they're gonna make a ladder rather than a rope.

That's my axe.

I would like to hear what someone who thinks differently has to say.

I don't hate alternative energy. I have no problems with solar panels, wind mills and geothermal power. However, all of these are either in their first generation or on just paper or prototypes. I'd like to see more of these, but the fact is that modern society cannot rely on these alone. A powerful, proven and reliable energy source is needed to keep modern society powered with electrcitiy and nuclear can do that. Nuclear power and the new alternative power do not exclude eachother but complete eachother. Alternative energy sources can do things nuclear can't but the same is true vice-versa.