• FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The graph is per terra-watt hour. My point is that watt for watt nuclear is actually one of the safest forms of energy.

    Many deaths over a period of time aren’t necessarily better than less deaths in an instant.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      My point is that watt for watt nuclear is actually one of the safest forms of energy.

      And flying is the safest form of travel, which makes the Boeing 737 Max the Chernobyl of planes I guess.

      The point is the chance of failure, even if they haven’t happened in a higher quantity so far, is very high, higher in nuclear power plants as they are currently designed or have been designed in the past, than other forms as you have described or supposedly newer ones that are on the designing boards as we speak. And when they fail, they fail too catastrophically, too horrendous for Humanity to have too many of those.

      Just one more time, because I don’t want to keep the conversation up, but I’m not anti-nuclear, just anti-old and current nuclear. Get those new smaller salt based low risk of catastrophic failure easier to operate by humans and handles human errors more gracefully reactors out there and I’ll be just fine with those.