What about the fact that nuclear plants can very rarely but still occasionally MELT DOWN AND KILL EVERYONE AROUND IT, where as if, let's say, a wind turbine fucks up some old handywoman in a pickup has to drive out to fix it.
Deaths related to nuclear compared to wind are significantly lower despite the terrible ways in which the former has failed. Workers falling or being injured on the job causes significantly more death, it just goes unreported compared to the spectacular nature of a nuclear failure.
That and the fact modern design is basically foolproof except where ignorant people cut corners to save money (as occurred at Fukishima which was designed to withstand exactly what occurred but cutbacks on safety in the design for cost saving occurred). I think that if the plants are built by non-capitalists nuclear they should operate perfectly fine now.
Chernobyl and Fukushima created exclusion zones in the thousands of square kilometers that displaced hundreds of thousands of people. Building them in the middle of nowhere isn't an option either, these plants require access to large amounts of fresh water, and such zones tend to be highly populated. Tbh I don't understand how anyone can look at the effects of the previous nuclear catastrophes and conclude that it is a good idea to continue building more.
The reason you can only name those two disasters is because nuclear disasters are so rare when you account for how much energy is produced, and modern reactors are even safer to the point where they're as safe as renewables, look at the data, idk what else to tell you. Logically you should be hundreds of times more scared of fossil fuels.
Fossils are not the alternative to nuclear power, everybody agrees that they have to go. When you include all the costs of nuclear power, instead of ignoring them as externalities as capitalism allows them to do, it is not cost competitive with renewables such as wind and solar.
Good, cost is a better point than safety. It's still pretty efficient so we shouldn't dismiss it entirely yet, there should be more research into nuclear options like thorium
deleted by creator
What about the fact that nuclear plants can very rarely but still occasionally MELT DOWN AND KILL EVERYONE AROUND IT, where as if, let's say, a wind turbine fucks up some old handywoman in a pickup has to drive out to fix it.
Deaths related to nuclear compared to wind are significantly lower despite the terrible ways in which the former has failed. Workers falling or being injured on the job causes significantly more death, it just goes unreported compared to the spectacular nature of a nuclear failure.
That and the fact modern design is basically foolproof except where ignorant people cut corners to save money (as occurred at Fukishima which was designed to withstand exactly what occurred but cutbacks on safety in the design for cost saving occurred). I think that if the plants are built by non-capitalists nuclear they should operate perfectly fine now.
What the other person said, mortality rates are similar to renewables per TWh https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Chernobyl and Fukushima created exclusion zones in the thousands of square kilometers that displaced hundreds of thousands of people. Building them in the middle of nowhere isn't an option either, these plants require access to large amounts of fresh water, and such zones tend to be highly populated. Tbh I don't understand how anyone can look at the effects of the previous nuclear catastrophes and conclude that it is a good idea to continue building more.
The reason you can only name those two disasters is because nuclear disasters are so rare when you account for how much energy is produced, and modern reactors are even safer to the point where they're as safe as renewables, look at the data, idk what else to tell you. Logically you should be hundreds of times more scared of fossil fuels.
Fossils are not the alternative to nuclear power, everybody agrees that they have to go. When you include all the costs of nuclear power, instead of ignoring them as externalities as capitalism allows them to do, it is not cost competitive with renewables such as wind and solar.
Good, cost is a better point than safety. It's still pretty efficient so we shouldn't dismiss it entirely yet, there should be more research into nuclear options like thorium