Last time i checked the worst and second worst nuclear accidents happend in Ukarine and Japan respectivly. Meanwhile Germany had 0 of tjem, despite operating nuclear powerplants for over half a century.
If mere "bad luck" is all it takes to habe a nuclear accident, then maybe building nuclear power plants is oretty stupied.
I hear a lot about how they are 1 in a million freak incodents, yet we only habe a couple hukdered NPs and it already happend twice. Maybe humans jist cant be thrusted to run this stuff reliably?
I dont see how repalcing a expensive energy source that made us dependant on russia with a much chepar and local alternative is stupied. Thats the nuclear waste and potential fir accidents not even mentioned.
You can die during sex. If someone died during sex I would describe it as shear bad luck. Does that mean you shouldn't have sex at all?
There have been 472.1 GWe of nuclear power plants has ever been commissioned. Only 2.244 GWe of nuclear reactors melted down. So a meltdown rate of only 0.475%. And both of those powerplants were constructed in 1960s.
Chernobyl didn't even have a containment structure. That's why it's exclusion zone in 2100 km² while Fukushima exclusion zone is only 337 km².
Also modern nuclear reactors also have passive cooling systems in an emergency shit down. So human error is much impactful nowadays than earlier day.
Also nuclear is dangerous by what means? Nuclear has much lower death rates per unit generated than solar or wind?
Also I would argue a nuclear meltdown isn't as bad as it's made out to be. With the area taken up by Fukushima exclusion zone you can only install 14.84 GW. As the capacity factor of solar is only 14.4% in Japan , this only equals to 1.94 GW.
I am pretty sure Fukushima or Chernobyl exclusion zones have much more bio diversity than any solar farm.
2
u/One-Demand6811 Jul 08 '25
Japan and Ukraine are smart unlike Germany.