Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    People who are strongly against nuclear power are ignorant of the actual safety statistics and are harming our ability to sustainably transition off fossil fuels and into renewables.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel this would have been spot on, in the nineties.

      Right now the problems plaguing nuclear are economic. There is no guarantee you can build and exploit a plant and get to break even before either it becomes irrelevant, or you fall victim to regulatory jostling.

      Nuclear was a missed opportunity, but the window is closing fast and it will probably remain a missed opportunity forever.

      • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you take all operational nuclear reactors safety records into account from all countries in the world, including all meltdowns and near meltdown disasters, it’s still by far safer and has resulted in less deaths and long term illness than any fossil fuel, on every single metric.

        True that newer style reactors are far safer, but that’s the point. If we had started to transition in the 70’s into nuclear power, we would have made a massive dent in climate change and set the stage to transition into full clean renewable energy sources and along the way improved regulations and engineering standards for existing nuclear plants.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, BUT the risk isn’t distributed like the rest. One Reactor could displace tens of millions of people, disrupt infrastructure, and cause devastating impact to the US economy. That’s a lot of risk based on it’s proximity. If they could build them in the middle of nowhere out west that could all be mitigated.

          • Sarcastik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right. Most don’t understand that risk is not just measured by frequency alone, but also by severity.

            Nuclear is off the charts once you consider the full magnitude of a failure.

      • procrastinator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Isn’t there Thorium reactors or something that should be some of the safest. And the waste can’t be turned to nuclear weapons. So it probably won’t be used :(

      • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t really go on Reddit, but Idk where you live, but in my experience talking to folks, most people are pretty put off by this view

    • ErwinLottemann@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I generally agree with you, but I think a lot of people are concerned about the nuclear waste and not the power plants but don’t realize that.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nuclear power plants generate waste very slowly—slowly enough that we won’t be using fission any more by the time it becomes a serious problem. Fusion ignition was achieved recently, so it’s only a matter of time.

        However, nuclear power plants are also extremely expensive to build, which seriously limits their practical usefulness.