> The risks of nuclear power going critical are far smaller than the benefits from not having to use coal for example.
That is a strawman argument. Coal has generally been uneconomical since the advent of combined cycle gas turbines where gas infrastructure exists. Today renewables are vastly undercutting both.
Trying to frame it as a choice between nuclear and coal is only made because nuclear does not stack up against the real competition in 2023.
> I forget what a life saved is worth in engineering terms. Something like 1 or 10 million per capita I think. $200 billion in cleanup only needs to save ~200-2,000 lives to be justified.
Or we just build power generation without those third party risks. I do not understand why you are trying to frame a $200 billion cleanup bill as "nothing to see, move along sheeple!".
> I'm cool with the idea that they should fix their pipe. I'm not cool with it being treated like a big deal without pretty solid evidence that the deal is big.
Almost all nuclear accidents final hole in the Swiss cheese is some sort of loss of cooling. When the backup power fails due to negligent maintenance that is a big deal.
Fukushima led to us building stockpiles of backup generators together with the necessary electric connections allowing us us to fly them in with helicopters and connect them if the primary ones fail. Saying that failure in the primary ones is "fine, nothing to see" is sticking your head in the sand.
That is a strawman argument. Coal has generally been uneconomical since the advent of combined cycle gas turbines where gas infrastructure exists. Today renewables are vastly undercutting both.
Trying to frame it as a choice between nuclear and coal is only made because nuclear does not stack up against the real competition in 2023.
> I forget what a life saved is worth in engineering terms. Something like 1 or 10 million per capita I think. $200 billion in cleanup only needs to save ~200-2,000 lives to be justified.
Or we just build power generation without those third party risks. I do not understand why you are trying to frame a $200 billion cleanup bill as "nothing to see, move along sheeple!".
> I'm cool with the idea that they should fix their pipe. I'm not cool with it being treated like a big deal without pretty solid evidence that the deal is big.
Almost all nuclear accidents final hole in the Swiss cheese is some sort of loss of cooling. When the backup power fails due to negligent maintenance that is a big deal.
Fukushima led to us building stockpiles of backup generators together with the necessary electric connections allowing us us to fly them in with helicopters and connect them if the primary ones fail. Saying that failure in the primary ones is "fine, nothing to see" is sticking your head in the sand.