| Which is again hindsight trying to downplay what was at hand. How do you know it wouldn’t become worse than Chernobyl when you have lost control? This is all hindsight speaking trying to downplay what risks nuclear power poses, because accepting them means letting go of your precious. All nuclear planes plan ahead. Evacuation zones. Handing out emergency radius, iodine tablets. When faced with a situation that is out of control you execute the plan. You don’t second guess if it is actually needed. That for the incident report to specify, and then update the plan. The response to Fukushima was even wider evacuation plans. Stress testing them. Better resiliency for the plants. We did change. But not in the direction you want when attempting to downplay Fukushima. Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? |
Nobody is downplaying the risks- not evacuating sick people and old people would have done far less damage regardless of the incident outcome. They just wouldn't have lived enough or a very small nr would have been affected
And as said, what's worse. When incident was tackled and radiation levels known, govt didn't rush to lift the orders causing even more deaths.
I'm not afraid of renewables and bess and never said that, don't put words in my mouth. I just realize that without nuclear countries will be bound to expanding gas firming if they dont have hydro, just like Germany. We can make a bet that even in 30y German emissions per kwh will still be worse than french ones due to this firming. In other words due to antinuclear policy in 50y of energiewende Germany will still have worse emissions vs France which did the job in about 20y of Messmer