Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
by mason240 on Thursday December 22, 2016 @11:35AM
(#13238333)
The scenarios are the same.
Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home.
Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home.
Actually you are right: they aren't the same because the nuclear incident has a better outcome.
>I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized.
I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe this about any other type of government.
Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
by Retric on Thursday December 22, 2016 @11:52AM
(#13238473)
In the first case you can sell the land in some cases for more than 1/2 the value of the house, thus making them different.
Not to mention the number of homes destroyed in a gas explosion world wide is tiny by comparison.
But... I'd say with truly modern nuclear power, safety is less of an issue. Perception of safety is still an issue. So your home value will go down. No biggie; you may be ok with that.
The issue that really bugs me though is that with nuclear, a large government or corporate entity has decided to roll the dice for you on your behalf. With something like solar, there is more possibility for local and individual control. So instead of bond issues, taxes, state-mandated insurance fees, contracts, and control by faceless entities with names like TEPCO who make decisions like "no let's not do the safety retrofit" you get to decide for yourself.
And, no gas explosions either! So, the best of both worlds.
I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized.