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.
Re:Nuclear power is too slow
by Schroedingersat on Sunday December 18, 2022 @01:00AM
(#34035412)
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.
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.