3 ms·
You said it yourself! "terrible things nobody would want in their town". Where the natural risk is higher (e.g. Fukushima), my answer is "just say no". Where
by peterburkimsher 9y ago
You said it yourself!
"terrible things nobody would want in their town".
Where the natural risk is higher (e.g. Fukushima), my answer is "just say no". Where the risk is manageable (deserts, a bunker under the Alps), I don't mind so much.
Nuclear is better than coal or oil, by a long way. Renewables would be great, but only hydro has a real chance to be competitive at this stage. So maybe nuclear is needed in some less-populated, geologically stable regions. I trust location more than any human safety protocol, because of the reasons in the article.
- tdb7893 9y agoI think part of the problem with nuclear is that the consequences are pretty clear. Burning fossil fuels puts a lot of particulates into the air that overall kills some people but we don't really think about it. It would be interesting to see what type of power was responsible for the most deaths per kWh
- imglorp 9y agoThe climate related deaths will rise, but humanity is having a hard time thinking long term about it. Just this fall, Irma, Harvey, and Jose took a number of lives and many billions in cleanup. Weather deaths per year might be a useful statistic to follow, including heat and cold deaths.