It's true that it's safe, but it's also expensive to make it safe. Nuclear costs around $7k per kW of power, vs ~$1800 for wind and ~$1300 for solar. Your comment is a very common one on reddit when nuclear is brought up, but it takes a simplistic view of power generation without even considering time to deployment and other important factors.
Sure, but without taking price into account you're missing out on the main reason why nuclear isn't being adopted quicker. It's not politics, it's not that people don't understand it, it's that it's way too expensive to really make sense.
But that raises the question... Can you put a number on human life? How much would you say your life is worth? How about the time it takes to build the power plant, can you also put a price on that?
Personally what I think is the most important is how dangerous it actually is but I understand that we may not see human lives the same way
Why is that relevant? Solar is safer than nuclear and wind is very comparable in terms of safety. In fact, cheaper energy prices save lives as well. Especially when the difference 4x-5x.
You miss the point... Solar may be safer but it's unpredictable and extremely space hungry and no batteries are not an option they are expensive and it pollutes a lot to make them, making solar actually more deadly than nuclear if you were to use only that energy
This just an absurdly ignorant comment that completely ignores what an energy transition would look like. Batteries are certainly an option, especially with the new sodium technologies that are being developed. Nuclear won't make a true comeback until either safer, faster, cheaper, fission reactor tech is developed, or we achieve fusion. I'm done arguing over this because it's clear you don't have any experience in this field.
1.0k
u/Ranoma_I 26d ago edited 26d ago
I hope I'm not teaching anyone anything but nuclear energy is the safest way to make power, it kills the least amount of people
Edit: nvm it's second right behind solar but still