Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenK
|
So when you exclude the usual mass-hysteria suspects, you get a death toll of 56 from a major industrial disaster. Now I'm not saying this is good, but it is orders of magnitude less than coal & oil.
Quote:
|
So we agree that there is a danger of nuclear energy.
|
Yes, because there's a danger from everything. But we can quantify those dangers, and when we do, we find that nuclear is safer than almost everything else.
Quote:
|
The point is that we just dont need nuclear energy because we got renewable energy alternatives.
|
Yes, we do need nuclear because we don't have renewable alternatives that can replace the entire energy supply (even after extreme conservation reduces energy needs). That's not saying that we shouldn't use renewables where they're practical, and can be developed without seriously harming the environment.
Quote:
|
Nuclear energy is not economic and heavily subsided...
|
Crap. In fact, it is anti-subsidized. New construction must meet nearly-impossible regulatory standards, much higher than are imposed on other kinds of power plants. Existing plants must pay special taxes (see Price-Anderson Act) on their generation. No other form of power generation has to pay these kinds of extra taxes, even though historically their risk is much higher. In many cases (e.g. fossil fuel plants) they're allowed to dump much of their harmful waste into the atmosphere without cost.
Quote:
|
...nuclear waste should be locked away for one million of years because of its toxicity..
|
More crap. It's not waste, it's a valuable resource which can be processed and used in other reactors. It's not dangerous for anything close to a million years - and again, fossil fuel plants get to dump their far more dangerous waste, which arguably IS dangerous for at least tens of thousands of years.