I generate most of the power my house needs right ON my house. I’m perfectly happy sleeping , eating and living there. The rain that runs off the generators waters my vegetable garden.
Do you want to live a few meters from a nuke?
Do you want to live a few meters from a nuke?
> Do you want to live a few meters from a nuke?
You probably don't know what a nuke is. Anyways, the worst nuclear reactor catastrophe killed ~30 people directly and ~5000 indirectly. Pollution kills ~250k people par year in Europe alone (coal related pollution is ~30k), cars kill about ~4k people in France, per year.
Why do we accept car deaths as an acceptable cost of transportation but not (the extremely few) nuclear related deaths as an acceptable cost of energy production ? Why do we accept 30k deaths per year due to coal pollution but not 5k death, once, because of nuclear ?
It sounds a lot like "dumb apes scared big boom" more than rational reasoning. That or the proverbial boiled frog
This is highly debatable.
A glimpse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
> Why do we accept car deaths
Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it, while those who refuse to be exposed to nuclear's induced risks (for them and their children, and their children, and their children... thanks to nuclear waste) are out of practical and realistic options.
Even at 10x you're still a far cry from fossils related deaths, every single year
> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it
??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians, not even talking about air pollution due to exhaust fumes being produces en masse right in front of people's flats. 1/5 of road deaths in EU are pedestrians
> thanks to nuclear waste
Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial than nuclear power plants lmao: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
The entire french nuclear waste, since the 70s, would fit in a cube with a side length of 15m... The one that matter: <3% of the total waste, the rest is low radioactivity/short half life waste
The question is not "which amount of fossil fuel, which amount of nuclear?" but about renewables and nuclear.
>> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it
> ??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians
Being ultra-alert, or avoiding crossing any street or even avoiding any area where motorized vehicles zoom around is possible. Avoiding most of the effects of a major nuclear accident or of some wandering "hot" nuclear waste (during the upcoming 100000 years or so...) is way, way more difficult.
> Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial
This is not about preferring coal to nuclear but about preferring renewables to nuclear.
> The entire french nuclear waste
(I'm French. ) Our "solution", named "Cigéo" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o ), isn't even ready (more than 60 years after the first industrial reactor diverged) and is officially imperfect (there are risks, French ahead: section «Déchets» in https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/#h.e4d4cdh3... ).
Better avoiding producing such stuff, IMHO. Renewables...
BTW check the trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
Very cool. Sounds like a great setup.
> Do you want to live a few meters from a nuke?
Yes, I have no problem with this at all. The risk of anything happening, catastrophic or otherwise, is extremely low.