3 ms·

Coal isn't great either (worse in a lot of ways), but the type of risk is different. I just find it odd that Nuclear seems to create these almost religious fol

Coal isn't great either (worse in a lot of ways), but the type of risk is different. I just find it odd that Nuclear seems to create these almost religious followers like the parent comment I replied to that ignore the tradeoffs and special risks of Nuclear failures. Wind and solar seem a lot more preferable and are getting better with battery improvements leading to increased capacity with a lower cost.

WalterBright 8y ago
> the type of risk is different Humans seem to be wildly irrational in their acceptance/rejection of different types of risks that has little to do with the odds of the risk.
ThomPete 8y ago
You should find any evidence of your own position before you start calling other people religious. The risk of nuclear is not even comparable to the risk of things you do everyday and take for granted are not worth worrying about. Find the evidence that show nuclear is even a fraction as dangerous as you claim. Dont take my worth for it, educate yourself. Then come back with the evidence and i will rally up behind you. Wind and solar are not even close to being able to deliver like nuclear and they deliver a fraction of the worlds need (1%). More people die from setting up solar and wind, way more animals die because of wind, both wind and solar pollute more. Its pretty obvious who is the religious person here.