- Joined
- 29 August 2006
- Posts
- 909
- Reactions
- 148
If this were any other type of power plant (coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, wood, whatever...) then this would have been over long ago.
Granted, but this isn't a zero sum game.
The "odds" of something going wrong may be small, but the consequences when they do are so large and that's the inherent problem with nuclear power.
How should we quantify the consequences?
Loss of life, exclusion zones, cost etc.
You could argue that conventional plants have a far greater kill rate without the major inconvenience of cost and relocation should something go wrong.
You can never reduce the chances of an accident to zero - sooner or later it's going to happen and we've got no effective response when it does.
The same applies to other forms of power generation.
Take the Banqiao Dam failure in China during the 70's where over 150,000 people died and 11 million people relocated. If nuclear plant killed that many it would be the last plant to do so. No doubt about it.
Also, the response at Fukushima, imo, under worst case scenario was outstanding, and continues.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/35de1/35de176c02564355a2b73014bc1179ebd13dfc71" alt="Two Cents :2twocents :2twocents"