Question by mliwisku: How to Change Negative Perception on Nuclear Power Plant?
Chernobyl still haunted us on how nuclear power plant deep impact. However, Nuclear is the most efficient energy source and relatively clean compared to fossil fuel. In my country Indonesia, a nuclear power plant is planned to be built, but most people are terrified with it. Anybody please tell me the way to ensure people that the benefit of a nuclear plant is much bigger than its environmental cost. Please advise me to the valid references to support my argument on this matter. Thanks for your kind help.
Best answer:
Answer by pipit pudjo
I think it’s more than just a perception. It is a fact that nuclear is dangerous. But nuclear does have some benefits. Make sure that the power plant is built far away from residency. Like in a remote island or something. I do believe nuclear is the future. Good luck for that
Add your own answer in the comments!
4 Responses
If you want to change that perception, you need to recognize the source–and it ISN’T the environmentalists.
Granted, Chernobyl is a horrifying lesson in why being all but fanatical about safety is vital. But in the 1980s we also had the Bhopal chemical leak disaster–and it killed and injured even more people. That never slowed the chemical industry down a bit.
Also, consider–in the Us we have had a conservative and anti-environmentalist slant in politics for most of that time–certainly since 2001. Environmental activists simply have not had the political clout to keep nuclear power from being revitalized.
So why has this not happened? Use logic-and follow the money. The oil and coal industry continue to reap enormous profits–and have the Repubicans (and a few Democrats) in their pockets. They stand to lose if nuclear power plants construction restarts.
That is the source of the negative perceptions. You want to change that–go after the source. But that isn’t in the offices of the Sierra Club or Green Peace. It’s in the boardrooms of the fossil fuel industry.
With all the natural gas I saw being flared off by Bontang on Borneo, I’d guess the power rates would have to be very low from the nuclear plant to compete with any gas fired plants. That means even larger subsidies from the government (you) or its being built in a very unsafe way. Glad I don’t work there any more. Only where power rates are very high would nuclear power be even remotely approaching profitable.
Things I haven’t seen mentioned yet in the answers…
1) The “Green People ” have only started seeing Nukes as a possible alternative for the past couple years.
2) In the 1970’s environmentalist lawyers really went out of their way to destroy the Nuclear industry and all the public utilities (power generation companies) using or building nuke plants. They sued over design and safety issues, forced reconstruction on systems already built, added new layers of safety and redundancy, and generally drove the plants’ costs through the roof. Some of the changes were for the better, mostly they made the plants more complicated and prone to breakdowns, Most importantly, made some lawyers very wealthy.
The utility companies had to, and were entitled to recover those insanely high costs, the ratepayers received much higher utility bills. They also faced horrible public perception which still exists today.
Now, since the 1970’s the technology has advanced significantly with the only downside being what to do with the waste products. Even that is being addressed by reactor designs that’ll use more of the fuel and even utilize much of the waste radioactive products.
Hope this helps.
well chernobyl happened because the people that worked at the plants had no idea what they were doing and they werent certified. in the U.S. there are really strict regulations and groups of certified engineers go through and check power plants.