> Quebec is 99% renewable[0] (95% hydro, 4% wind) and runs through the coldest of winter just fine!

Hydro has huge impacts on the environment and can only be built if you have mountains and large amounts of water.

Oh, and it’s one of the dealiest sources of energy. The Banqiao dam disaster in 1975 killed as much as 250.000 people while there are less than 50 deaths attributed to Chernobyl according to UNSCEAR/WHO.

Chernobyl may have less deaths, but it affected the health of hundreds of thousands.

If you think about the danger of renewable sources of energy, know that there is not alternative because we have no alternative planet.

Betwwwn 250,000 accidental deaths and billions of suffering people, I choose the former.

But where are the billions suffering from nuclear power? As you point out, even with a generous accounting, Chernobyl was orders of magnitude less than that.

There are many myths about Nuclear power.

1. Chernobyl was an old, unsafe design, and the disaster was human error. There are better safer designs.

2. The true toll of Chernobyl is the hundreds of thousands of people killed due to pollution from coal plants (52000 per year in US alone). Lives that could be saved if countries had shifted to Nuclear more aggressively.

I don't know why you think billions are suffering from Nuclear plants. About 20% of total power generation in US is from Nuclear. Can you tell me how many millions are suffering from it?

> Betwwwn 250,000 accidental deaths and billions of suffering people, I choose the former.

Those were your words, so I'm asking you about the billions.

>Quebec is 99% renewable[0] (95% hydro, 4% wind) and runs through the coldest of winter just fine!

Comparing hydro to wind and solar is unreasonable.

Hydro is a battery, wind and solar are not.

I think you’re confusing hydro with pumped storage.

Hydro is easily comparable with wind/solar assuming the scheme has a steady inflow (river, rain, snow etc)

I completely agree you can build hardy solar/wind generation (i.e. runs in winter), however, the sun still sets each day, and wind is intermittent and unpredictable. until there is a revolution in battery technology, relying on those two sources (without others types of generation) will result in large electricity price spikes.

Also fair to note that fossil fuel plants also froze and were unable to operate. It's not even a renewable or not question. It's just whether your grid has been properly hardened against the elements.

Nuclear works under nearly all environmental conditions. Heck, we have nuclear powered energy sources in space.

Russia built a floating nuclear power plant in the remote city of Pevek in the polar circle where hardly any wind turbine or solar panel will be able to generate sufficient amounts of electricity.

I didn't check but I did read somewhere that one nuclear plant also shutdown in texas because a sensor froze.

The issue isn't about the type of fuel, it's planning for cold weather events.