La crise de l’automobile allemande a révélé l’attachement profond du pays à la maîtrise du métal, à la combustion et au sport automobile. Une culture mise à mal par le véhicule moderne, dominé par le logiciel, la batterie et la conduite autonome.
If you take into account every nuclear related death and even include potential/indirect ones from radiation exposure (cancer) it’s still killed less people than just the physical extraction of fossil fuels. That’s not even getting into the potential/indirect deaths caused by the burning of the fuels/pollution.
Not to mention modern day reactors are incredibly safe. Thorium reactors are pretty cool
Sure, on paper those are incredibly safe compared to older models. However, our current economic system has no incentive to keep these reactors in a top-notch state. Instead, companies in order to maximize profit will reduce maintenance to the bare minimum of what’s necessary to pass whatever laughable security standards are imposed on them.
That is, if there are going to be frequent and thorough inspections at all. I.e. it is well-known here in Germany that due to tax evasion roughly 20 billion Euros are missing from the federal budget. I do not believe this is going to change anytime soon, and neither do I believe it will be much different if we build new reactors.
All I hear is a lot of bad logic. The worst nuclear incidents took place over 30 years ago. The closest we’ve seen to those in more recent times required a tsunami to hit the reactor and even then there wasn’t all that much damage.
Modern style plants are incredibly safe.
Of course today solar and wind work and are cheaper. But these unfounded fears about have held us back
And yes there is a risk a very small risk. Fossil fuels have and continue to kill more people by every possible measure, but this was preferable to nuclear. Why? The answer is simple it’s preferable to have a poor person crushed or end their life choking to death due to the lung damage then it is to have a miniscule risk that you may face the repercussions of your consumption. Dying for you electricity is for poor people
If you take into account every nuclear related death and even include potential/indirect ones from radiation exposure (cancer) it’s still killed less people than just the physical extraction of fossil fuels. That’s not even getting into the potential/indirect deaths caused by the burning of the fuels/pollution.
Not to mention modern day reactors are incredibly safe. Thorium reactors are pretty cool
The propaganda around nuclear energy is insane
Sure, on paper those are incredibly safe compared to older models. However, our current economic system has no incentive to keep these reactors in a top-notch state. Instead, companies in order to maximize profit will reduce maintenance to the bare minimum of what’s necessary to pass whatever laughable security standards are imposed on them.
That is, if there are going to be frequent and thorough inspections at all. I.e. it is well-known here in Germany that due to tax evasion roughly 20 billion Euros are missing from the federal budget. I do not believe this is going to change anytime soon, and neither do I believe it will be much different if we build new reactors.
All I hear is a lot of bad logic. The worst nuclear incidents took place over 30 years ago. The closest we’ve seen to those in more recent times required a tsunami to hit the reactor and even then there wasn’t all that much damage.
Modern style plants are incredibly safe.
Of course today solar and wind work and are cheaper. But these unfounded fears about have held us back
And yes there is a risk a very small risk. Fossil fuels have and continue to kill more people by every possible measure, but this was preferable to nuclear. Why? The answer is simple it’s preferable to have a poor person crushed or end their life choking to death due to the lung damage then it is to have a miniscule risk that you may face the repercussions of your consumption. Dying for you electricity is for poor people