| Getting smacked with an asteroid like with the dinosaurs is also a source of concern. This endless list of nit picky objections that go on and on and on and on and on, that are brought up no matter how low the probability, is why we can't have nice things (like cheap, reliable, zero-emission electricity available 24/7). More people will die from plane crashes—which is amongst the safest ways to travel—than from nuclear waste radiation in the next few hundred years. Geraldine Thomas, the co-founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, says there are more worrisome things than radiation: * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas I personally live about 50km nuclear reactor and don't think about it at all. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_Nuclear_Generating_S... |
There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear.
> cheap
Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
> reliable
A continental fleet of a renewables's mix is at least as reliable.
> zero-emission
No, the total lifecycle emissions of nuclear (industrial PWR) is low (10-15 g eqCO2/KWH) but not zero.
> electricity available 24/7
A continental fleet of a renewables's mix with storage (vehicle batteries thru V2Gn, green hydrogen, hydro...).
In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+...
> More people will die from plane crashes
One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future.
Note: my own brother was killed during a jetliner crash (Swissair SR111, 1998).