4 ms·
The figures in the article are already specified per watt-hour. So expanding to 100% of power generation would not change the conclusion. Even if we had a chern
by shawnz 8y ago
The figures in the article are already specified per watt-hour. So expanding to 100% of power generation would not change the conclusion. Even if we had a chernobyl every 2.5 years, that could still add up to a better safety rate than other energy sources.
- varjag 8y agoIf vast fallout national parks are your thing, sure.
- vidarh 8y agoPeople still live in the exclusion zone, and most of it has lower background radiation than high altitude cities people don't think twice about. The other reactors kept operating for years. The Chernobyl exclusion zone was and is excessive. Even if it wasn't, the cost in land would still be perfectly fine even if you had one every year and quarantined each area for a century.
- varjag 8y agoThe problem is not so much background radiation, but polluted produce you consume and poorly mapped hot spots. But sure, if that's your thing. I'll pass.
- shawnz 8y agoI don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. All energy sources have dangers, but nuclear has the least danger in proportion to the amount of energy it gives. A few large disasters are not inherently worse than many small disasters. Just because nuclear disasters create a more dramatic scene than other types of disasters, doesn't mean that the overall harm is greater.
- varjag 8y ago"The least danger" is poorly qualified here. The article certainly does no justice with straightforward, apples to apples comparison.