3 ms·

And I keep posting this but even Fukushima, which actually exploded, didn't kill any more people per kwh over it's lifetime than a typical coal plant. http://h

• Spooky23 11y ago
  Deaths per KW or cancers per KW is not really very relevant, because the risks associated with our current nuclear regime will persist for centuries. 100 years from now, when the Indian Point reactor will have long stopped producing electricity, there is a reasonable probability that dangerous waste materials will still be sitting in a questionable state of security just off a riverbank 40 miles north of NYC. As a society, we're not really equipped to work with that kind of risk horizon.
  • johncolanduoni 11y ago
    How about the climate effects of the CO2 produced by coal? How are we any better equipped to deal with that risk horizon? At least in the case of nuclear waste, there is a chance of containing the pollution. For fossil fuels, all currently feasible methods of containing CO2 are woefully inadequate. And even if we develop good CO2 containment methods, the comparably experimental technologies being investigated for Generation IV [1] nuclear reactors promise similar benefits without losing the other advantages of nuclear (relative abundance of fuel, etc.). For example, closed fuel cycles currently in development produce only non-radioactive waste. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor