Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkiJayne
I think the people of Chernobyl might disagree with that first graph. Also, when solar goes wrong it doesn't tend to render the area uninhabitable for 20,000 years.
Interesting that nuclear uses so little concrete.
|
+1. It would be helpful to at least provide the source for these graphs (unless I missed that), so that it's clear where this analysis originates from. And nuclear safety is a bit like aircraft safety - all or nothing, and I certainly wouldn't have got on a 737 Max 8 last week.
The nuclear industry also has a less than perfect track record of concealment of problems, which seems embedded in the industry culture (particularly in the West), so I'm slightly sceptical about safety claims.
As a topical and close to home example, Hunterston B, on the West Coast of Scotland, is still shut down, due to the cracks discovered around the core of that reactor.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47485321
It's also worth noting the global tendency to site nuclear sites far from large population centres, which may or may not imply some concern about the fallout risk.