3 ms·

You still can't replace all air pollution with nuclear power. And nuclear contamination is still worse than any coal contamination if it ever occurs. Any nuclea

You still can't replace all air pollution with nuclear power. And nuclear contamination is still worse than any coal contamination if it ever occurs. Any nuclear accident on the scale of Fukushima or even Tschernobyl would take a reasonable chunk out of our GDP because of the exclusion zone, even if the death count would be neglible as you seem to think. If a majority of voters think this small risk of gigantic damage is not worth taking, you eventually have to accept that. Coal is not the future, it is a stop gap measure.

nix23 5y ago
>You still can't replace all air pollution with nuclear power. No one ever said that, however it's still tumbling around in you head for whatever reason. >And nuclear contamination is still worse than any coal contamination if it ever occurs. Future generation would probably say that a CO2 saturated atmosphere is worse...Earth is the new Venus. >If a majority of voters think this small risk of gigantic damage is not worth taking, you eventually have to accept that. And if china builds Nuclear and Coal power plants you have to accept that too, and if N.Korea trows a ICBM into your country you have to accept that too, but i think thats not the discussion, the fact that Germany believes it's green when in fact they are brow (from the coal) is just laughable, and even sell that power to other country's, coal plants are there to make money and not as a "stop gap" and you get the "fresh" air. >Coal is not the future, it is a stop gap measure. Exactly wrong, "old" Nuclear power was the intelligent stop gap.