4 ms·
A 1% failure rate is not acceptable. Nice try downplaying the actual consequences of a reactor incident like Chernobyl. Do I have to mention radioactive boars
by beders 7y ago
A 1% failure rate is not acceptable.
Nice try downplaying the actual consequences of a reactor incident like Chernobyl.
Do I have to mention radioactive boars roaming in Bavarian forests again?
The billions in costs to an economy?
The only part I agree with you is that coal is a not an acceptable way to generate power.
There's now sufficiently cheap power generators that don't devastate whole areas for centuries to come.
Let's use those instead of this old nuclear tech.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoCore damage frequency of modern plants is in the 1e-6 to 1e-8 range/year. That's 4-6 orders of magnitude lower than 1%. I highly recommend you read some recent info regarding Chernobyl [1]. I'm not downplaying it at all. I'm using quantitative numbers produced by teams of UN and WHO scientists. RE cost: climate change will cost trillions. Nuclear power plants can prevent that cost. "Centuries" is a persistent anti-nuclear myth. Again, see [1]. I don't think you're well justified in saying I'm downplaying Chernobyl when you're going on and saying stuff like this! [1] https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/worlds-worst-energy-accidents-in-environmental-perspective/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/worlds-worst-energy-ac...