4 ms·
It would be great if externalities were insured by everybody, yes. But externalities are real, why would you ignore them "out of fairness"? The sane thing to
by mohawk 10y ago
It would be great if externalities were insured by everybody, yes. But externalities are real, why would you ignore them "out of fairness"? The sane thing to do is to consider them for all kinds of power generation, and then make the best choice. Nuclear just has huge unconsidered negative externalities, we haven't even yet talked about cost of storing and guarding waste for centuries.
Thankfully there are only a few more years until wind & solar will have solved this once and for all by being cheaper, externalities considered or not.
- wrsh07 10y agoYou can't reject one form of power [as worse than existing power] because of externalities if you aren't considering the negative externalities of the existing power. It's not out of fairness, it's out of minimizing future damage. If you aren't accurately considering the environmental damage of oil/coal/gas, then you can't say they're superior to nuclear just because you are considering its negatives. I agree -- I look forward to a future of clean renewables, but even still wind and solar are inconsistent. Our storage systems aren't good enough to "just use batteries."[1] We need a dependable, renewable form of energy that can bridge the gap for 80 years until our storage is good enough. [1] http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#moving-storage http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#moving-storage