• @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            133 months ago

            There are industrial accidents, like fossil fuel plants catching fire and/or exploding, with more casualties than every nuclear ‘disaster’ combined.

              • @aubeynarf
                link
                3
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                .you just can’t get around needing consistent base load capacity. I wonder if the cost of a few GWh of batteries or complicated pumped dam/lake systems is reported in solar/wind figures to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

                maybe once we have a huge fleet of plugged in EV‘s serving as battery storage, variable sources will make sense as primary generation

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            73 months ago

            I’ll be the one to point out that TMI is exactly what you want to happen in a “nuclear disaster”. Nobody got seriously hurt that we know of, the problem was found and dealt with quickly once identified, and we’ve implemented TONS of extra safeties to make sure that can’t happen again without massive alarms and Serious Lights. Could it have not happened at all? Absolutely. But in a disaster, it’s the perfect “disaster” - nobody died, nobody got seriously injured directly, the plant got screwed up, and $2b to clean up ANY disaster site is honestly pretty damn cheap when we’re talking radioactive heavy metal remediation.

            • @aubeynarf
              link
              4
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              The BP Deepwater Horizon spill cost like $60B to clean up, so even with inflation $2B is comparatively small.

    • lurch (he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      43 months ago

      all reactors are built near water and susceptible to some sort of flooding though. i realized that after German Biblis was hit by a flood earlier this month

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        So is nearly every coal/gas thermal power plant ever built. Steam turbines need water and cooling, thr type of thermal generation used doesn’t change that.

        • lurch (he/him)
          link
          fedilink
          33 months ago

          the point is: other types of power plants just spill less hazardous materials when destroyed by a flood and don’t have the additional risk of a meltdown.

          • @aubeynarf
            link
            53 months ago

            Coal ash is arguably a bigger contamination risk.