3 ms·

Land is valuable, but it's value is overshadowed by the massive amounts of energy production of a nuclear plant.

• bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Not really. I don't mean the area directly occupied by the reactor facility, but rather the exclusion zone of an incident like in Chernobyl or Fukushima. Not that many people died in these incidents - because those zones were evacuated at great cost.
  • jaggirs 5y ago
    Yes, I mean the exclusion zone, it doesn't matter, the numbers are still in nuclear's favor.
    • bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Certainly not in the case of Tschernobyl or Fukushima in particular. And to try and project the risk from accidents that happened so far is just foolish. The risk is really not computable because the chance is small (fat tail) and the consequences catastrophic. Additionally proponents want/need to scale up nuclear power (and thus the risk) by orders of magnitude to make a dent in carbon emissions. And then, on top of all that, any small amount of actually bad intentions or simple incompetence throws off all the careful risk calculations.
      • jaggirs 5y ago
        Nuclear power plants are an economical no-brainer. The ecomic consequences of a disaster are nothing compared to the power produced over the average life time of a nuclear plant. Fukushimas economical damage may not even be attributable to the nuclear plant, considering that the tsunami may be directly responsible for most of the damage (which would have been done with or without a power plant). The risk of a disaster is a different matter I don't want to get in to, I think people just fear what they don't understand. By this point, the people making and running the things know what they are doing in my opinion.