Re:Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas ...
by roenxi on Saturday April 06, 2019 @10:30PM
(#19594418)
> My point is that failure of nuclear energy provision is demonstrably worse than the failure of any other options we've tried.
No it isn't; when dams fail villages get swept away and everyone dies. Bad mining disasters can wipe out ~50 people too.
When Fukushima failed, basically nobody got hurt, and there is a lot of inconvenience and resources have to go to cleaning the thing up.
Obviously it is still awful for the people involved, but I'd personally rather go through a nuclear accident than a dam failure or have a mine fall on me, because I'd still be basically ok after a nuclear accident. The argument might be that it is uneconomic after accounting for the costs, but it is demonstrably safe and so a far better failure mode than anything else we've tried.
I mean, Fukushima has basically proven that the only question is economic cost/benefit.
No it isn't; when dams fail villages get swept away and everyone dies. Bad mining disasters can wipe out ~50 people too.
When Fukushima failed, basically nobody got hurt, and there is a lot of inconvenience and resources have to go to cleaning the thing up.
Obviously it is still awful for the people involved, but I'd personally rather go through a nuclear accident than a dam failure or have a mine fall on me, because I'd still be basically ok after a nuclear accident. The argument might be that it is uneconomic after accounting for the costs, but it is demonstrably safe and so a far better failure mode than anything else we've tried.
I mean, Fukushima has basically proven that the only question is economic cost/benefit.