(October 22, 2018 at 5:37 pm)Dr H Wrote:I'm not saying there are no risks to other power sources but the is a risk to nuclear and even thou only 6 people died the damage is more then death and just because this one only killed a few does not mean we will be so lucky in the future .(October 21, 2018 at 12:19 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Tell that to the people who lived in Fukushima Daiichi
Any power generation source could be damaged or taken out by a natural disaster.
What do you imagine the photos would look like if an earthquake took out the Grand Coulee or Hoover dams? Or if a tornado took out Yingli Solar, releasing tons of sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride into the atmosphere (greenhouse gases tens of thousands of times more potent than CO2)?
Risk/benefit analyses are a good thing.
* Six people died as a direct result of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, with an estimated additional 573 deaths listed as "disaster related."
* The 1975 destruction of the Banqiao hydroelectric dam, by Typhoon Nina, killed at least 171,000 people, just from the initial dam failure.
* An average of 350,000 people die annually per trillion-kilowatthour of electrticity produced by fossil fuel plants; for nuclear the annual average per trillion-kWh is about 90.
You don't get something for nothing, but the costs for some things are lower than for others.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb