If you think the NIMBYism for renewables is bad, imagine trying to build a nuclear plant in your backyard. In fact, the majority of problems with nuclear being slow to build boil down to "the NIMBYs wont have it".

This is probably a place where nuclear and renewable advocates could come together and fight back against the NIMBYs who would rather you just built more coal plants next to the poors. Because NIMBYism is just lower-case c conservatism with extra steps.

NIMBY can be solved with enough money and willpower; we don't have that right now.

It can also be reduced or solved by telling people outside "the area" they don't get a say.

What's "the area" for nuclear power though?

The hypothetical radioactive cloud could travel a few hundred miles in the wind...

If your only concern is radiation exposure, coal plants actually emit more radiation than nuclear. And that's deliberate, everyday emissions, not the accidental once-in-a-decade megaevents like Fukushima or Chernobyl.

Please do share the total cumulative activity of all bioacumulative elements present in all non-filtered fly ash ever released and compare it to the Cs137 that Sellafield poured into the ocean as part of normal operation in 1975 or the Kr 85 that La Hague releases on an average year.

I was replying to

>It can also be reduced or solved by telling people outside "the area" they don't get a say.

The area that gets a say, should surely be the area impacted by it.

Further. Whataboutism, comparing it to a rapidly obsoleting technology doesn't seem reasonable.

I suppose it's how you define 'build'.

If I build an IKEA bookcase, do I time the build from when I throw the instructions away, or when my significant other decides to buy it between mouthfuls of meatballs?