[arn3n]

I have this stance. It’s, for me, a tail-risk calculation: For a given nuclear power plant to be more environmentally friendly than equivalent coal, you have to price in the probability of a nuclear catastrophe with the fact that such catastrophes create fallout that can outlast human civilization.

I can expect that a well-built nuclear plant might not have a catastrophe in my lifetime. But when the consequences are so long-lasting it seems prudent to avoid them entirely. One misbuilt reactor or one governmental regime that rolls back safety regulations and you end up with irreversible consequences. Given the tendency of corporations to “race to the bottom” and abandon safety, and the general unwillingness of the US Government to give proper attention to potential catastrophes (like climate change), I don’t believe that we as a society can handle the responsibility of nuclear reactors. I wish we could have nuclear safely; I don’t trust us to be safe, so I’d rather we not have nuclear at all.

[wiml]

Environmental disasters that will likely outlast human civilization? Coal does that in normal operation.

[teamonkey]

It’s not an either-or.

[wiml]

Isn't it, though? A GW generated one way displaces a GW generated another way. As long as we are building and operating coal-fired power plants — which we are — it is reasonable to consider displacing those plants with fission plants. I'm not aware of any system in which coal is better than nuclear.

Of course, yes, wind and solar are great. But despite the amazing growth in those sources, we're still burning a huge amount of coal and oil.