3 ms·
And they produce orders of magnitude more energy than a similarly sized other plant, so the question is more like -- is a single nuclear plant statistically mor
by kaba0 3y ago
And they produce orders of magnitude more energy than a similarly sized other plant, so the question is more like -- is a single nuclear plant statistically more likely to go wrong vs any one of 100 or 1000 "normal" plants?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoAre we discussing the building of them or operation of them? Due to the complexity of nuclear plants, any issues encountered during building are likely to drastically effect the costs and time required, whereas coal plants are a more mature technology that we already have a lot of experience with. NB. I'm not claiming that coal plants are a better choice (they're not), but that there's less risks involved with the financing and manufacture of them. If we're discussing the operation of already built plants, then I can't find any stats, though I'm sure there's been at least some explosions or fires in coal plants. I daresay that a coal plant explosion is a lot easier to deal with and resolve than a nuclear plant explosion considering the problems with toxic materials.
- kaba0 3y agoBut nuclear plants can’t explode, that’s just nonsense. There are 436 nuclear plants active on Earth and there was only two accidents in more than half a century, one with the older tech we already knew back than that it is bad design plus.. the whole soviet management of it, the other is a neverbeforeseen sized tsunami plus mismanagement.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago> But nuclear plants can’t explode, that’s just nonsense. I doubt your understanding of the phrase "can't explode". > There are 436 nuclear plants active on Earth and there was only two accidents in more than half a century, There have been more than two core meltdown incidents. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_e...