3 ms·
It's costly because the author made it excessively costly in his previous job.
by wbl 5y ago
It's costly because the author made it excessively costly in his previous job.
- number6 5y agoAnd if a reactor blows up (happens roughly ever 35 years) there are huge additional costs. Last time we were extremely lucky that we hadn't to evaluate Tokiyo. If something like this would happen in Central Europe it would be extremely costly for the whole world. But something like this could happen trice right?!
- wbl 5y agoPeople live happily in Denver Colorado or New Jersey. Nobody ever says we should evacuate them. But they get an extra dose of radiation from living there, which reactors don't get. It's about costs and benefits. Central Europe also doesn't have tsunamis.
- number6 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe
- ch4s3 5y agoChernobyl was the only one of those that blew up and it was based an idiotic graphite pile design abandoned everywhere outside of the USSR in the 50s. Fukushima Daiichi experienced 3 small hydrogen explosions that were fully contained by the reactor building, and wouldn't have happened if they hadn't built their backup power for that reactor underground. According to a linear no-threshold model, the accident would most likely cause at most 130 cancer deaths in total assuming everyone in the zone of highest exposure received the maximum possible exposure, which they did not. Three Mile Island didn't kill anyone and no one was exposed to enough radiation to increase their risk of cancer. The accident happened because someone trained on submarine reactors misapplied that training and turned off the cooling system. No operating reactor allows an operator to do that anymore. The reactor did not blow up. Only one civilian nuclear power reactor has ever "blown up", Tokyo was never in danger, no one died because of Three Mile Island, and even around Chernobyl the predicted incidence of cancer is failing to materialize.
- number6 5y agoOk let's change the perspective from cost in human lives to cost in money as the parent comment statet: is nuclear power still cheap if we count these disasters?
- coldtea 5y agoYes, if they could only throw caution to the wind, give it to the lowest bidder, and relax quality and safety standards!
- pseudalopex 5y agoStraw man.
- coldtea 5y agoAs opposed to the ad-hominem "the author made it excessively costly in his previous job"?