4 ms·

When you employ a worse form a energy generation than nuclear because of your response to said scandals then you are acting emotionally and not by the knowledge

• Arnt 4y ago
  Well, it's not my personal opinion, so I don't suppose I care that deeply… but I confess I'm curious. The insurance company that insured the building I live in sent a letter a couple of years ago, saying that after the string of water leak problems we've had, our insurance premiums would more than double. In effect judging our insurance risk by the number and cost of our past problems. I suspect you won't describe that judgment as emotional. But when people judge a power company by its past safety record, you describe that as emotional. Why? What's the difference? What makes one judgment emotional and the other not? What does "emotional" mean?
  • madsbuch 4y ago
    No, you are right. that in fact happened, and the insurance company set the new premium based on imperics not emotions. my point is, that the "insurance premiums" we have to pay now are significantly higher because we did not employ nuclear on a larger scale 50 years ago. to stay in analogy: you had the choice of choosing another piping system that would have decreased your insurance premiums, but didn't based on an motional response. what we forget to factor in is the enormous tax we have to pay now and the coming years due to the decision of not employing nuclear: infrastructure to manage higher water levels. climate migration issues, energy dependency issues, you name it. and that tax we have to pay due to an emotional response.