The safety aspects alone SHOULD be enough to convince people, yet here we are.
The difference between nuclear-power- related disasters and fossil fuel related disasters is astronomical.
And honestly the amount of radioactive isotopes that get spewed out from burning coal day in day out for decades on end absolutely dwarfs the amount of radioactivity released from nuclear disasters.
Solar’s a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it.
A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there’s much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there’s an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times.
it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don’t have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production.
The safety aspects alone SHOULD be enough to convince people, yet here we are.
The difference between nuclear-power- related disasters and fossil fuel related disasters is astronomical.
And honestly the amount of radioactive isotopes that get spewed out from burning coal day in day out for decades on end absolutely dwarfs the amount of radioactivity released from nuclear disasters.
one dangerous thing being less unsafe than another doesn’t make it safe.
And nobody suggested it did.
But the argument of “it’s more unsafe” doesn’t apply, that was my whole point.
If one thing is less unsafe than another, why the fuck WOULDN’T you want to switch the the DEMONSTRABLY LESS UNSAFE THING
yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass.
Solar’s a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it.
A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there’s much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there’s an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times.
Biomass is not sustainable. You’ll cut your forests down to sate demand.
it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don’t have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production.