3 ms·
Perhaps. Or, further proliferation of nuclear energy would have lead to more Chernobyl style accidents. Not to mention the weapons aspect. Nuclear is also expen
by geysersam 5y ago
Perhaps. Or, further proliferation of nuclear energy would have lead to more Chernobyl style accidents. Not to mention the weapons aspect. Nuclear is also expensive, it could never have significantly outcompeted coal in India and China anyway even if it had faced less resistance.
- Zababa 5y agoChernobyl killed less people than air pollution due to coal does in Europe in a year. The difference is that Chernobyl is a big, visible event, while coal plants in Germany and Poland are a slow poison, and people don't notice slow poisons.
- nickpp 5y agoNuclear is in large part so expensive due to overregulation lobbied by anti-nuclear groups and NIMBY sentiment generated by anti-nuclear fear mongering. All tech is expensive and dangerous initially, becoming cheap and safe with increased availability and competition in the market place. See aeronautics. In the case of nuclear this process was abruptly halted by green activism.