Maybe you should do your own homework before linking Wikipedia at me. Nuclear is safer than hydro in terms of human casualties per energy produced as well as per land mass destroyed, and if you want to make a counter-argument or add any other variable the burden of proof is on you.
mirshafie
joined 9 months ago
Who are "we"? Because Scandinavia didn't just start.
Yes, like those. Your three examples show how benign nuclear power is, factoting in the absolute worst of circumstances and most ridiculous levels of incompetence.
I pick 30 minutes at Mach 7, here's your $5 Canadian and please get out of my way, I do intend to board now.
I'm sure batteries will play an important role in the future, but it's not significant today and I don't see any indication of this changing rapidly in a meaningful way. I'd love to be wrong though.
Regarding the issues with nuclear power, the ecological impact is far better than hydro and health impact/deaths is also significantly better. I'm not trying to badmouth hydro here, but I think it's important to be fair and acknowledge that on those two issues (ecological impact, human health) nuclear has a better track record.
Irrelevant.
Completely false. Many countries have nuclear power with no nuclear weapons. Most of Europe, much of Asia. Africa is about to build many nuclear power plants too.
Jim, it's like robocalling but for the marketplace of ideas!
Germany's energy policy is dogshit and it's basically committing suicide. It's great that Germany is finally displacing some of its coal plants but killing your economy in the process is hardly an example of a successful transition to green energy. Good luck with your chemical and mechanical industries on wind and batteries.