3 ms·
> We've tried for 70+ years and have as yet not succeeded to use nuclear as a financially feasible energy source. Nuclear is used widely. It is definitely a fe
by maratd 9y ago
> We've tried for 70+ years and have as yet not succeeded to use nuclear as a financially feasible energy source.
Nuclear is used widely. It is definitely a feasible energy source, by definition.
It is becoming financially infeasible because of cheap natural gas. The same is happening to coal.
> Why has a nuclear facility never been able to be fully privately insured without government backing?!
For something to be privately insured, there needs to be a statistically significant data set. We don't have that for nuclear incidents. There just aren't enough of them.
- Beltiras 9y ago> There just aren't enough of them. Blissfully. 3-mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are quite enough thank you very much.
- wbl 9y agoOne coal plant will emit more radiation then all of those combined over its lifetime.
- ricw 9y agoA quick google Search states that there are 449 currently active reactors. Pair that with 50+ years of mass usage, and we have a pretty large data set that should be more than sufficient to calculate the risk. And as I stated previously: gas and oil are historically not low at all. They are only low compared to 5 years ago. Nuclear is reallly expensive and risky. That's why it's failing.
- iso-8859-1 9y agoFailing? In China (2015), nuclear was the fastest-growing electricity source (29% growth).