Three Mile Island.
Chernobyl.
Kyshtym.
When a solar plant breaks down or a dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience. When you get a nuclear meltdown you get land uninhabitable for literal millennia and global contamination.
Three Mile Island.
Chernobyl.
Kyshtym.
When a solar plant breaks down or a dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience. When you get a nuclear meltdown you get land uninhabitable for literal millennia and global contamination.
> The Kyshtym disaster, sometimes referred to as the Mayak disaster or Ozyorsk disaster in newer sources, was a radioactive contamination accident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a plutonium production site for nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel reprocessing plant located in the closed city of Chelyabinsk-40 (now Ozyorsk) in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union
So it's even less related to this nuclear power plant than Chernobyl. The only incident vaguely relatable is Fukushima, and guess what, they weren't really up to the required security standards and it took an enormous earthquake and tsunami to do actual damage, which is still very limited and resulted in less deaths than what, a month of a coal power plant?
> dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience
Seriously? Dam failures can be catastrophic and very deadly:
And the alternative to nuclear at the moment isn't really solar or hydropower (most places aren't suitable for it) but rather coal and gas. And those are continually polluting the environment not just with CO2 but also carcinogens and other pollutants.
Of that list of accidents only Chernobyl is still uninhabitable, so it's hardly "literal millennia"
Three Mile Island didn't even kill anyone and many believe neither did Fukushima.
> minor inconvenience
Hmmm.
I'm convinced most people got confused with the Fukushima and the actual Tsunami damage to Japan at some subconscious level.
> When a solar plant breaks down or a dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience. When you get a nuclear meltdown you get land uninhabitable for literal millennia and global contamination.
This is a not a fair comparison if we are talking facts not perceptions. It ignores issues of storage that doesn't make the energy outputs commensurate. It ignores the constant polution and health issue stemming from fossil fuel power plants when nothing goes wrong --- since the ability to use solar and wind wihtout those is as-of-yet undemonstrated at scale.