2 ms·
I don't really see a problem with it provided that they've genuinely taken the lessons learned from the Fukushima incident to heart and can assure people that n
by autoexec 4y ago
I don't really see a problem with it provided that they've genuinely taken the lessons learned from the Fukushima incident to heart and can assure people that nothing like that will happen again. They should probably plan and be prepared for the reactors to handle for earthquakes and tsunamis much worse than what hit them in 2011 as well as any projected complications arising from climate change.
Nuclear energy isn't ideal, but it beats fossil fuels and can bridge the gap until it can be replaced by cleaner renewable energy.
- theshrike79 4y agoNuclear vs fossil fuels pretty much boils down to this: Nuclear - you might have a big pollution incident at some point Fossil - you have a continuous pollution incident every minute of every day Which is worse?
- Krssst 4y agoAlso big incidents would they happen would still have a regionally limited impact while climate change affects the entire planet.
- credit_guy 4y agoThat's a false dilemma. You can control both. You can take measures to reduce the probability of a nuclear accident, and the impact of a nuclear accident if it were to happen. You can also take measures to reduce the continuous pollution coming from fossil fuels. Depending on which measures you implement, how stringent they are, and how strictly they are enforced, either nuclear or fossil-based power plants may come ahead.