|
|
|
|
|
by roenxi
660 days ago
|
|
People can point it out, no worries. Disasters happen. But it isn't fair to claim that the risks of a nuclear disaster are worse than solar one. We haven't seen what a big solar disaster looks like yet because it has been a serious contender for ~5-10 years and it takes a few decades to figure out what a disaster looks like for any given form of power generation. For solar it could easily be quite bad and impossible to design out. We have, to date, 0 methods of generating electricity at scale that are free of catastrophic failure modes. Solar will not be free of them either, and we don't really have the data yet to figure out how they compare relevant to nuclear ones (which, on balance, are the mildest of all the tested options!). It could do well, it could do badly, but it is not entirely fair to compare a known low risk in nuclear to an unknown risk in solar. > So you are kind of referring to mass extinction events. no? No, I'm not. I included a wiki link to the sort of thing I think could be a problem. It doesn't mention extinction. |
|
The idea of a global darkness for a significant period of time, would be extinction level.