Actual deaths from solar power are higher than actual deaths from nuclear energy, per GW delivered. Solar death is mostly from falling from high places, but so what? Death is death.
There's a conversation to have about the long tail but I'll probably start calling people cowards at some point so lets not.
This is not a serious argument. Large scale solar farms are hardly more than 6 feet off the ground and would essentially eliminate this risk. I expect the number of deaths and decrease in quality of life attributable to fossil fuels is far far higher to speak nothing of Climate risks in general.
I am personally doubtful of your comments around deaths being more frequent. Statistics around the specific cause of death would also be appreciated.
Im not sure if conspiracy is the right word. The special interest groups bullshitting everyone are not necessarily coordinating. Is religion also a conspiracy?
Never mind.
I believe that I'd feel safer with nuclear if they paid for their own damn insurance and raised the liability cap to "unlimited" but apparently they dont feel its safe enough just yet to raise their financial exposure. What if fukushima happened again? Dealing with that was expensive!
Perhaps you could explain why they cant volunteer to shoulder their own risks if theyre so safe?
In SPITE of free insurance they still need lavish taxpayer subsidies to be financially viable while wind and solar dont.
...including a policy to pay the cost of decommissioning.
There isn't a production nuclear power plant in the world that has ever been fully decommissioned. The earliest production plants in the UK have been taken out of service, but decommissioning (so the land they were built on can be re-used) is expected to take the rest of this century.
In Chernobyl around 50 people died as direct consequence of the disaster. As far as I know there's no studies showing increased risk of cancer in the population that lived in and around Chernobyl at the time. If Chernobyl showed us one thing it is that radiation is not as dangerous as we believed.
I think it's worth assuming some reduction in life expectancy for some people, but notably the estimates of lost years of life have dropped year by year, and will likely end up being negligible.
I've said it before: we could have a Chernobyl every year, and it'd still be worth it (reducing deaths) if it got us off coal sooner...
However, all that was completely drowned by a collapse of life expectancy resulting from the chaos of the 90s. We're horrified at a few tens of extra cancers, but 100M men losing 10-15 years of their life due to socio-economic circumstances doesn't raise anyone's eyebrow
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...