Averages don't matter when you are talking about fat-tailed/power law risk distributions. Nobody would be opposed to PVs on roofs in their neighborhood b/c some

Averages don't matter when you are talking about fat-tailed/power law risk distributions. Nobody would be opposed to PVs on roofs in their neighborhood b/c some construction workers fall to death every year - this risk is well calculable. But (almost) everyone would be opposed to a fission plant or nuclear waste facility next door - and rightfully so. How is this even an argument. Nuclear risks are also calculable. The regulatory hurdles nuclear has to go trough, even for testing reactors, to meet risk criteria (among others), are enormous. The vast majority of nuclear, as exposed by deaths/TWh generated, is extremely safe. Flying vs driving argument. Take the worst nuclear catastrophe. Take the wildest overestimation in deaths. It's still less than most other sources, including renewables. No, in practice humanity never figured out how to safely and efficiently use this power source What? France. All their active residues probably fit in one or two football fields. 3th/4th Gen will consume them, making medical radioisotopes in the process. You can't contain megatons of CO2 this easily. In the meantime, air pollution kills in the range of 6-8 million people a year. German support for keeping nuclear grows https://twitter.com/hh_mikawe/status/1284770806090825728?s=20 https://twitter.com/hh_mikawe/status/1284770806090825728?s=2...