3 ms·
The article doesn't fairly compare with the risks of say, oil. Look at Exxon for a good example of how costly (and seemingly never ending) the damage and cleanu
by ksaj 6y ago
The article doesn't fairly compare with the risks of say, oil. Look at Exxon for a good example of how costly (and seemingly never ending) the damage and cleanup can be. And what to make of the earthquakes caused by fracking?
I live in an area with multiple nuclear plants. We've never had an issue with them, although there was one false alarm. Even then, nobody seems to feel very unsafe about it around here. Property values are just as high as they always were.
We did have a natural gas plant blow up. So I'm not very convinced of the nuclear dangers by comparison. Especially since nuclear technology keeps getting better, safer, and more efficient. That can't be said for much of the fossil fuel industry.
- StreamBright 6y agoEspecially if you view the right metric. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy The reason why nuclear is safe and a great option is energy density. You cannot really beat that with fossil fuels or renewables. We have to make nuclear safe in the sense that not even an earthquake can trigger an accident like Fukushima but we already made nuclear the safest source of energy based on the number of deaths per twh produced.
- jjeaff 6y agoAre there any known instances of a fracking induced earthquake causing any damage? Any reports I've seen seem to be quite localized and minor.