> "that did not lead to any loss of life, but, 7 years later, some 31 people died"
Undercounting casualties of nuke disasters has a long tradition.
Undercounting casualties of nuke disasters has a long tradition.
Not to dismiss undercounting in general. I may think that nuclear fission is a good option to expand today, but it's not like a religion that I identify with. It's possible I've been using wrong figures and therefore my conclusion is wrong. But then do point out where the missing deaths (or cancer cases, etc.) per produced TWh are or I will continue to believe it's better to expand nuclear fission than to keep using fossil fuels with vague hopes for "let's build solar and wind in undefined locations with magic storage technologies, and hopefully some breakthroughs here and there." (--most climate action plans that look beyond 2025)
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy "Eliminating fossil fuels could cut premature deaths from air pollution by around two-thirds. That’s three to four million deaths per year."
Wind is being installed all over the world in multi-use locations, including offshore shared with boats, and onshore shared with farms and ranches. There has been absolutely no shortage of viable sites, and there will not be.
Solar is also compatible with multiple uses, although there has been little need for it. Many locations benefit from solar roofing. I daresay you have seen plenty of parking lots roofed with solar, and a great many more without, yet. Similarly, hydro and municipal reservoirs, and canals, where reduced insolation means reduced evaporation. Anyone suggesting a shortage of sites that would actively welcome solar installations has no globe. Even on farmland, numerous crops benefit from partial shade. I haven't see that yet, because there has been absolutely no shortage of other sites.
Thus, "undefined locations" is not honest. We can easily see exactly where they are being installed, with no need to guess or wonder abstractly.
Multiple storage methods are known, all low-tech, with the only open question being which ones will end up cheapest to deploy. Underground compressed air and gravity storage have been demonstrated. Production of ammonia from air and water may end up, not cheapest, but most valuable.
I trust you will not repeat these canards. They do you no credit.
Nuclear is uncompetitive today, and getting moreso every day, as costs of wind and solar continue their free fall. Geothermal may ultimately come to challenge them, particularly for baseline load.
You can, if you like, think of geothermal as nuclear power without the huge decommissioning cost commitment.