"This is the brief, simple story of two major clean energy projects, and how one exposes the double standards suffered by the other."
Yes, just like Banquiao dam disaster that killed 60'000 people should be enough argument against hydro power, right?
@kravietz No. that is still not the same. A dam can be secured with well-known engineering measures and the failure mode is clearly defined.
People can always screw up, but a dam disaster does not condemn unborn generations to sickness and death.
> A dam can be secured
Sorry but you are now ignoring like 50 years of engineering in nuclear power technology. No modern nuclear power reactor will even suffer a meltdown, even if the crew abandons it and power is switched off.
Long answer:
The problem is that you're basing your argument on 1) completely false data invented by Greenpeace & friends regarding mortality of Fukushima and Chernobyl, 2) false assumption that there's any technology that guarantees zero mortality.
In Fukushima 1 (one) person died as result of the nuclear power plant failure.
In Chernobyl that was below 100 (one hundred) over decades, depending on how you count.
Each year hundreds of people die worldwide in accidents related to solar and wind power. You don't seem to care about them, do you?
@kravietz I don't want to reiterate decades of pro/con nuclear power discussions. Show me a reactor that won't blow up and a safe & practical way to store the byproducts for 1000s of years and we can talk.
> a reactor that won't blow up
*Any* reactor of the 450 currently operational in the world won't "blow up". You have been watching too many horror movies.
> store the byproducts for 1000s of years
You have been lied to. High waste loses 93% of its activity after only 100 years.
And before you complain about the tiny amount of waste that is left, let me introduce you to K+S facilities in Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz which already store extremely toxic waste for decades.
https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/
Have you heard Greenpeace freak about them?
No. Because they "only" store mercury, cyanide and arsenic waste.
Which does *not* lose toxicity over time, unlike nuclear waste.
What are you going to do about that?
> we can talk.
I don't think we can. You made your mind ages and and are totally immune to any data and arguments.
@kravietz I'm sorry. I didn't want to trigger your fervor for more nuclear power.
The article you linked originally seemed to me a little careless about why people are not into nuclear. I pointed that out.
And as somebody who personally biked through Chernobyl fallout as a teen, I know exactly why most Germans don't want anything to do with it.
But you do want 24/7 energy and you are ready to burn coal, oil and fossil gas to obtain it. Oh and you also certainly are concerned about climate change. Makes perfect sense 🤷♂️
But even worse, hundreds of thousands die each year as result of pollution caused by burning coal, a preferred source of energy in Germany.
In Germany alone the decision to shut down nuclear power plants is estimated to have resulted in loss of >1000 lives.
You don't seem to be worried?
https://grist.org/energy/the-cost-of-germany-going-off-nuclear-power-thousands-of-lives/
@kravietz The difference is that one of them will kill the neighbors if it is just slightly mismanaged. The other one just sits there.
One would think that Chernobyl and Fukushima would be enough of an argument at this point.