8 ms·
If you're taking that kind of thing into account you need to take the same time range into account in other power sources. How many hundreds of billions of peo
by scrollaway 9y ago
If you're taking that kind of thing into account you need to take the same time range into account in other power sources.
How many hundreds of billions of people will die over the next 30000 years from coal effects? How does that compare to your 'hundreds'?
- jonathanstrange 9y agoI completely agree and don't think coal is better than nuclear power at all. Reduction of energy waste, renewable energy sources and nuclear fushion are the obvious way to go, but it may make sense to temporarily accompany them with nuclear power.
- scrollaway 9y agoSure, I didn't mean to imply that. I just meant that whatever long term damages are done need to be put on a timescale that actually helps us compare alternatives. If hundreds of billions of lives are saved in the time it takes for nuclear to do real damage, maybe that's just worth it.
- jerven 9y agoIt is also worth to estimate how quickly nuclear production can scale up and deplace coal. I personally think wind and solar can scale up much faster economically and socially and more easily deplace coal and gas than nuclear could in the best case.