3 ms·
It is an apples to oranges comparison, but wouldn't the honest comparison would come out about the same? My memory is that nuclear emissions from a coal fired
by another-one-off 11y ago
It is an apples to oranges comparison, but wouldn't the honest comparison would come out about the same?
My memory is that nuclear emissions from a coal fired station are comparable to a nuclear station, and nuclear doesn't produce smoke. So nuclear should still come out 13,000 people/year ahead.
- foobarian 11y agoThe problem with the coal vs. nuclear pollution impact is the liability structure. With a coal death, there is no easily identifiable responsible entity. With a nuclear accident, there would be a line around the courthouse: irradiated and condemned properties, cleanup costs, claimed deaths, etc. This cost translates to insurance and regulatory overhead. It just sucks that coal impact is so anonymized by all pumping into a shared atmosphere. Unless there can be a successful class action against the whole industry that won't change.