3 ms·
I believe the point is that coal plants are understood to always pollute, whereas nuclear plants are promised to never pollute. Can you see where that distincti
by swaits 15y ago
I believe the point is that coal plants are understood to always pollute, whereas nuclear plants are promised to never pollute. Can you see where that distinction is important?
- sigzero 15y agoI have never seen that second assertion.
- roel_v 15y agoWho has ever promised that nuclear plants will never pollute? That's a ludicrous statement to make, and it's almost as ludicrous to state that someone respectable has ever promised so.
- swaits 15y agoExcuse me, but if a nuclear plant pollutes, specifically in the form of un-contained radiation, that's considered a failure, right?
- roel_v 15y agoYes, what's your point? Option 1: coal plant that, statistically and averaged over all plants, kills x amount of people every day of the year (through exhaust pollution, killed miners, etc.) Option 2: nuclear plant that kills y amount of people, averaged the same; direct kills through accidents + indirect through increased cancer risks (discounted for natural occurrences of those cancers etc.) When x > y, it's better to use nuclear. And y, despite the Fukushima fear mongering, is quite small. The matter is not 'nuclear can fail, so we shouldn't use it'; the matter is 'which one has the lowest overall cost' (cost taking into account lives, health risks, economic risks etc); and then choosing that one.