Why does the green party oppose nuclear power?

Jesus (maybe) lived 2,000 years ago. It will take another 10,000 years before Chernobyl is habitable again. For me the risk is too great even with technological advances to use nuclear power as anything but a stopgap measure.

Nuclear Power is the only effective, clean and viable solution to the energy crisis we will face in the future. Why does the green party oppose it?

And before anyone makes the nuclear waste argument, we bury it underground or fire it at the sun. Sorted.

Jesus (maybe) lived 2,000 years ago. It will take another 10,000 years before Chernobyl is habitable again. For me the risk is too great even with technological advances to use nuclear power as anything but a stopgap measure.

It's mainly due to the (perceived) link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Is recommend watching this documentary of you get a chance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Promise

I hate this perception that nuclear power is dangerous. People always just conjure up images of toxic green goo and babies with 8 fingers and think "**** that"

The real chances of meltdown are minimal, and safety in nuclear power has come a long way since chernobyl



Besides, nuclear fusion is only a few years off now

Presuming you're talking cold fusion rather than fusion in general (because that's been going for billions of years, we simply can't really create the conditions here on earth), that's a naively optimistic view - cold fusion is going to be miles off even if we ever achieve it simply because it is such a massive challenge.

People quoting Chernobyl or three mile island are miles off - the former was a massive design flaw where feedback about broken mechanisms was done so unintuitively you'd think it was actually fine, the latter due to poor training. Neither demonstrated the danger of nuclear power, it demonstrated the danger of human stupidity.

And yet coal has killed more people than nuclear likely ever will. It just does it slower. The safety argument about nuclear reminds me of planes and cars everyone thinks the former is more dangerous, because the accidents are more spectacular. Even though aircraft has a much better safety record.

We don't use soviet era nuclear plants. Ours use passive cooling mechanisms. The chernobyl accident or even fukushima could not happen in this county.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Besides, nuclear fusion is only a few years off now

Nuclear fusion has been "only a few years off" for decades.

We've been consistently hitting important milestones every few years.

I'm talking about cold sustained fusion, it's very possible we will hit that milestone "in a few years"

This would be akin to reaching the summit, from there everything would fall into place, with commercialisation coming within the next 50 years, and clean, cheaper energy available to the masses within the century

rooftop solar panels kill the most people per kW/h out of every energy source

That's fine, I'm all for that research, but when we think of energy policy we should think about what we know we can now, not on what we think we may be able to do some time in the future.

Jesus (maybe) lived 2,000 years ago. It will take another 10,000 years before Chernobyl is habitable again. For me the risk is too great even with technological advances to use nuclear power as anything but a stopgap measure.

Chernobyl was just a poorly managed, poorly designed system, it can't be compared to better designs with well-regulated management.

Ironically I find this is a case where the anti-nuclear lobby acts in a very similar manner to the anti-wind lobby, as the latter likes to point to the number of birds killed by the Altamont Pass Wind Farm as evidence that all wind turbines kill birds, even though it uses design which became obsolete long ago and it's located in the middle of a major flight path.