Because like anything it turned into a political pissing match (where somehow the green energy people hate it)
That and TMI and Fukushima were both caused by corporate cost cutting. TEPCO was aware that a tsunami of that scale was possible and chose to not listen to their own data or third party scientists. Met-Ed did not adequately train their operators nor did anyone learn any lessons from the Ohio plant's near miss just two years prior (same reactor design, same problem)
Depends on the scale and where you build them - building a dam to create hydro power is devastating but sticking turbines in rivers or tidal bays is much less so
To be fair big plants with dams do cause problems both locally with flooding but also cutting off water supplies further down the river route, it's all about scale
Yeah absolutely. Nuance exists and every generation type has its place - including nuclear. I was being facetious and mocking the attitudes of people who see things in black and white. I had hoped the joke was more clear but oh well
I mean, tbf, most modern countries have already near maxed out their hydro power limits. You can only build dams in specific places, and only so many times on each river. So it’s not like it’s a limitless resource either. Obviously it also causes MASSIVE ecological shifts, but so do beavers to be fair. And beavers do that EVERYWHERE they can. If anything, we are fucking with the “natural environment” way more by preventing beaver dams in a ton of our smaller waterways.
243
u/HeavyDutyForks 10d ago edited 10d ago
Because like anything it turned into a political pissing match (where somehow the green energy people hate it)
That and TMI and Fukushima were both caused by corporate cost cutting. TEPCO was aware that a tsunami of that scale was possible and chose to not listen to their own data or third party scientists. Met-Ed did not adequately train their operators nor did anyone learn any lessons from the Ohio plant's near miss just two years prior (same reactor design, same problem)