Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
And yet, if you take a look at the track record, nuclear energy is still safer and cleaner solar, for example. And a lot more than gas. And far, far more than coal.TomC said:This is rather why I'm so leery of nuclear power.
As long as everything is good, it's clean.
Except for the waste disposal issues.
But then there's human nature. From all out war to creeping complacency, nuclear power plants have the capacity to produce huge human disasters.
TomC said:Imagine a war, just a conventional modern war, with nuclear plants as prime targets.
There is no realistic scenario in which any country or group of countries can launch a conventional war against America and hit Texas's power stations, nuclear or otherwise.
But if you're talking about other places look at the rest of the world, what has happened is refineries and generally the oil industry being targeted, causing serious environmental disasters. Would it be worse with nuclear? You'd have to consider it on a case by case basis, but so far, what we see historically is that nuclear remains much safer than fossil fuels, and also everything else (except wind, which is close), and also, take a look at bilby's points regarding safety.
We can do much better than imagine it: we can take a look at actual examples, and again we see no safety problems with the nuclear power stations in South America or Africa. The problem is, recently, anti-nuclear activism. But that is not a safety problem. It's a political/ideological problem.TomC said:Or a nuclear power plant in a third world country, like in Africa or South America, subject to the vicissitudes of political turmoil.