> As long as the extrapolations for nuclear are prone to extreme outcomes The extrapolations for coal are prone to very extreme outcomes, believe me. :-) > n

> As long as the extrapolations for nuclear are prone to extreme outcomes The extrapolations for coal are prone to very extreme outcomes, believe me. :-) > nuclear is more unpredictable Citation needed, I think. The impact of coal on the climate and human health is still an open question, and given the scale of its use, a small change in our estimation of impact yields very large changes down the line. I can see arguing that a "safety factor" should be baked into calculations based on how confident we are in the models. If you can say X +/- 50%, maybe we should just assume it's 2X, just to be safe (or whatever), but iff you can say X +/- 2%, X seems like a pretty good baseline. However, I think you greatly underestimate the uncertainty of fossil fuels , and greatly overestimate the uncertainty of the safety of nuclear power. I mean....how exactly would a nuclear power plant cause 50k deaths? Or irradiate New York City? Obviously no nuclear power plants (or any other...) are being built in the middle of Manhattan.