[danielharan]

There are more than 600 power plants in the US that use fossil fuels, the 600 is just for coal.

As for the severity of the earthquake, it's far more important to consider proximity than absolute magnitude. A smaller one closer or right under could have been catastrophic. A few of us consider building plants in active tectonic zones to be the height of insanity. Building it right by the shore, in historical tsunami zones? Incomprehensibly stupid.

Of course, the alternative to nuclear isn't just coal. Renewables and efficiency should be considered first. Safer than both coal and nuclear, they also create more jobs.

[AngryParsley]

Sorry, but you're wrong about the safety of renewables. The statistic you're looking for is called deaths per terawatt-hour. Nuclear wins by an order of magnitude: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawat...

For the same amount of energy, renewables kill more people than nuclear. People fall off their roofs installing solar panels. Hydroelectric dams burst. Even windmills kill people.

For the next few decades, fossil fuels are the only alternative to nuclear power. Wind and solar aren't baseload sources. Hydro is, but we've already put dams in most of the economically and environmentally feasible locations.

[lispm]

Here in Germany we are now at 25% renewable energy for electricity. Without much hydro. Expect to see something close to 40% in 2020.

There are lots of environmental impacts of renewable energy, but generally the acceptance is higher than for nuclear or coal.

[AngryParsley]

Yes, 25% of electricity produced in Germany comes from renewables. But Germany imports 2/3rds of its energy, so less than 10% of domestic consumption is from renewables.

Here's a tangentially-related fact: France is the world's largest energy exporter. 75% of their production comes from nuclear. Germany is still dependent on nuclear power, they just passed the buck.

[lispm]

Germany has an export surplus (!) of 10TWh electricity in the first half of 2012. We are among the world's largest exporters of electricity.

[robk]

At an extraordinarily high cost to the taxpayer. Well above what any rational body would have/should have paid for getting to this level.

[danielharan]

So someone proves an argument unsound, and you just say they're crazy? Nice.

[lispm]

The taxpayer is paying nothing.

[danielharan]

Yes, an order of magnitude if you only count rooftop solar. NOT if you count wind. Maybe for efficiency, people replacing lightbulbs and motors are at risk of death.

Yet for both wind and solar, this reflects all known risk, while for nuclear we still have to deal with catastrophic risks as well as storage of spent fuel.

As to the only alternative to nuclear being fossil fuels, someone should tell it to countries investing in solar power (especially concentrated) or wind. Germany and China come to mind.