Quote:
Originally Posted by alexshock
1. Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly shown that it is not safe.
|
Is "safe" a binary condition? What things in the world are 100% safe, or 100% unsafe?
Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly show 2 ways in which accidents involving nuclear power generation can occur, and nothing more.
Fukushima is the 2nd worst nuclear disaster in history and it killed... zero people.
What metric do we use to determine if something is "safe"? If people fall of wind turbines and die, do we say they are unsafe? How about the roof of houses while installing solar? Do people that die in construction accidents building dams prove they are unsafe?
A skilled thinker would evaluate safety in terms of deaths per x number of delivered terawatt hours, and that skilled person would find nuclear has about the fewest deaths per delivered energy.
If nuclear is "not safe", then nothing is.
Quote:
|
2. The global plan for zero emission is not purely about emission, but more about recoverable sources and energy independence. Nuclear is not recoverable.
|
That's a dumb global plan then, because it should be about delivering energy humans need to flourish.
As an aside, zero things in the universe are recoverable. Entropy will scatter everything.