11 ms·

And deaths also spiked, although they're so diffuse only the statisticians will pay attention. Nuke is clearly safer than any fossil fuel source by a wide ma

And deaths also spiked, although they're so diffuse only the statisticians will pay attention. Nuke is clearly safer than any fossil fuel source by a *wide* margin. By some arguments utility-scale solar is safer than nuke--but only if by some miracle you can get virtually all your power from solar. We don't have the storage technology for that and if you have to run the natural gas plant when the sun doesn't shine you put nuke way in the lead for safety.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> Nuke is clearly safer than any fossil fuel source by a wide margin. Not financially. > A nuclear power plant takes roughly 10 years and at least 2-3 billion dollars to build. And probably even more time and money to decommission, which shareholders have no intention of paying, and banks won't fund. And when there's an accident, the US govt. limited compensation to peanuts: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n... Remember that Chernobyl was partially responsible for destabilizing an empire.
anoncake 6y ago
> Nuke is clearly safer than any fossil fuel source by a wide margin. Only if you 1. only take deaths into account and 2. redefine danger to include predictable damage.