6 ms·

Plenty, but just the same number + 10k for moving to renewables, if a bit more expensive at this point in time.

• wsc981 6y ago
  Seems that if reducing the amount of deaths involved with generating energy is the goal, nuclear energy is still the number 1 choice [0]: > That’s right – even when including seemingly catastrophic incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima in the calculations, the math says that the amount of energy generated by nuclear is so vast that it more than outweighs these incidents over the long-term. > The reality is that nuclear energy is much more comparable to renewables like solar or wind, in terms of safety. More importantly, it’s on the polar opposite of the spectrum from coal, which manages to kill 4,400 people daily in China alone. These numbers are especially interesting when considering that nuclear seems to provide more energy (4.9%) compared to wind (<1%), solar (<1%) and hydro (2.5%) combined. Total deaths per 1000 TWh of wind, solar and hydro amounts to around ~2000 while nuclear amount to ~90. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy...