I can’t say I agree with you there. Worst case for nuclear power is highly contaminated local areas (highly unlikely with modern designs), whereas the worst case for climate change is global environmental collapse.
I'm a nuclear proponent, but this ignores airborne particles and ecological collapse which can propagate and have very broad effects. Those things can be managed, but the 'worst case' of nuclear is not negligible.
Though even poor management of nuclear materials very quickly eliminates the worst cases.
You’re very much correct, although I think the reality of the threat of wide scale contamination is often overstated.
To use Chernobyl as an example, since that’s the worst case of an airborne release from a nuclear plant that I know of, the absolute worst case in the case of a steam explosion breaching the other reactors’ containment was contamination of a significant portion of Europe.
Modern reactors are designed so that such things are almost impossible, even without competent operators.
The worst case for climate change is a mass extinction event. So while I agree with you that the worst case of nuclear is non negligible, the probabilities and scale of such events push me towards the opinion that nuclear energy is an extremely good option for limiting our use of fossil fuels in the near future.
Of course a serious nuclear incident may cause a reversion to fossil fuels. That may not be rational but that is human nature. Not much you can do about that.
So the worse case of nuclear power is actually global warming caused by fossil fuels. And an eye watering San up bill that has opportunity costs for decades.
Comments
I can’t say I agree with you there. Worst case for nuclear power is highly contaminated local areas (highly unlikely with modern designs), whereas the worst case for climate change is global environmental collapse.
I'm a nuclear proponent, but this ignores airborne particles and ecological collapse which can propagate and have very broad effects. Those things can be managed, but the 'worst case' of nuclear is not negligible.
Though even poor management of nuclear materials very quickly eliminates the worst cases.
You’re very much correct, although I think the reality of the threat of wide scale contamination is often overstated.
To use Chernobyl as an example, since that’s the worst case of an airborne release from a nuclear plant that I know of, the absolute worst case in the case of a steam explosion breaching the other reactors’ containment was contamination of a significant portion of Europe. Modern reactors are designed so that such things are almost impossible, even without competent operators.
The worst case for climate change is a mass extinction event. So while I agree with you that the worst case of nuclear is non negligible, the probabilities and scale of such events push me towards the opinion that nuclear energy is an extremely good option for limiting our use of fossil fuels in the near future.
Of course a serious nuclear incident may cause a reversion to fossil fuels. That may not be rational but that is human nature. Not much you can do about that.
So the worse case of nuclear power is actually global warming caused by fossil fuels. And an eye watering San up bill that has opportunity costs for decades.