Unless an accident happens...right?
Nuclear power has very specific risks, risks we have seen realized in at least three separate occasions with fairly disastrous results. I'm not sure it should be vilified, but neither should we try and sugar coat it as many in the nuclear power business try to do.
I think that the most logical answer would be: Combustion has risks.:slight_smile:
There's not "nothing" wrong with any means of generating electrical power. Hydroelectric literally buried the town my mother's family is from and some of the more stubborn residents with it. Wind power can be a blight on scenery and may even cause vertigo and depression in surrounding residents. Methinks this prompt needs some nuance and specificity.
@citizenthom Fair point.
I feel like what @citizenthom said about needing nuance and specificity would certainly enhance this debate thread and maybe get some more discussion going on it, but here's the thing. Nuclear power in and of itself is just power. Water, hydro, solar, wind.. its all just power.The issue with nuclear is the after part. It's like saying there's nothing wrong with burning coal for power. Well, technically that's true, for about .000000002 seconds.There's nothing wrong with it until it combusts and emits toxins that are deadly. At which point it becomes an issue.The same goes for nuclear. It's fine during the actual power production phase of the reaction. However, and I'm sure that if you're advocating for nuclear you fully understand the negatives associated with it.. the after part is incredibly dangerous and has potential to do more damage than ten coal plants.I'm sure you are wise enough to understand this.