The Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables

forbes.com

8 points·trashtester··5 comments

> The problem posed by the existence of nuclear energy was that it proved we didn’t need to radically reorganize society to solve environmental problems. We just needed to build nuclear plants instead of coal-burning ones.

I think this is what a lot of people are picking up on and why they don't trust a lot of the "green movement". It's disingenuous to be alarmist about global warming while simultaneously dismissing the most likely solution. It seems it's about wanting much more than just wind and solar, they want to restructure and recreate society based on their own moral principles.

> Ordinary people tell pollsters they want renewables for the same reason they buy products labeled “natural”: they are in the grip of an unconscious appeal-to-nature fallacy.

Maybe "natural gas" has the same psychological effect?

I imagine the coal and natural gas industry don't really like nuclear as well.

There are absolutely converging interests, there. For the natural gas industry, wind power proponents are the perfect allies.

The fossil fuel companies like nuclear, because they know that nuclear takes a really long time to build. So it's a great distraction from wind and solar: "Hey, stop building this thing that can be done right now, and instead start on a different project that will take decades to complete, while we continue to sell fossil fuels."

Nuclear plants are often delayed because of the open questions, like what they're going to do with spent fuel, and how they're going to pay for the entire lifecycle of the plant (which contains a lot of hazardous materials), as well as high-profile accidents. So they make a perfect target for fossil fuel industry whataboutism, to spread FUD about wind and solar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com