4 ms·
> If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there wo
by Safety1stClyde 9y ago
> If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power.
Nuclear power is much less subsidised than solar power or wind power. The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. As for the risks, nuclear remains the safest form of power.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...
- unlmtd 9y agoThe cost of nuclear fission is ignored/not-understood. It's also impossible to insure against the risks (see Fukishima). As such, it is completly illegal. Also note that it is the cornerstone of nuclear-fission bombs. So nuclear power is the most destructive endeavor of all. It dwarves fossil fuels in potential destructive power. Our survival depends on banning all nuclear fission.
- caf 9y agoThe whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. That is not literally true. Commercial solar panels for both remote-area power and spacecraft existed before subsidies aimed at large-scale generation. On the other hand, the nuclear power industry certainly wouldn't have existed without entirely state-funded, military nuclear programs.
- jimnotgym 9y agoI also feel we have never quite get to the true cost of nuclear. In the UK there are obsolete nuclear stations where nothing much is happening to decommission them, and they are already billions over budget in their decommissioning. I have begun to feel that it is the ultimate in cheap power now, and the next generation can pick up the cost.