Seeing that they need quite a lot of clean water, which is not widely available everywhere during the entire year in big amounts, especially with these droughts due to climate change.

  • redballooon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Slightly off topic, there are about 450 nuclear plants on earth. A noted MIT study in 1989 estimated that each nuclear plant only has a worst case nuclear accident every 20000 years.

    Statistically that would make one every 44 years.

    In our history we have had nuclear power plants for about 60 years, and so far there were three worst case nuclear accidents.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but those worst case nuclear accidents have nothing on coal in terms of a death count. They sound scary, but overall don’t come even close to it.

      • redballooon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        True but In 2023 the alternatives are not nuclear vs coal, but nuclear vs wind and solar. The fallout for each accident is immense. Western Europe dealt with Tschernobyl for years. Japan was just lucky that the wind blew in the other direction.

        If the world triples nuclear power plants, and we deal with an accident every 7-10 years, that’s gonna be a serious problem, even if it is “just” country sized areas that become unfarmable or so.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pitting nuclear against wind and solar is stupid given how much they compliment each other.

        • ashe@lemmy.starless.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A study from 1989 doesn’t apply to modern plants built 35 years later, it really doesn’t make sense to extrapolate it like this.

          • redballooon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            While true, the study obviously underestimated the evidence we gathered in the real world. It’s not simple to handle numbers with many 0 behind them, therefore it’s good to have multiple approaches.

        • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We can not have clean emergy because coal miners have to mine coal.

          If they don’t mine that coal then the whole thing falls apart.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That 3 in 60 is pretty loaded since Chernobyl simply would not have been possible with western reactors of the same design year, to say nothing of what passed as modern than and even more so now.

      • redballooon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would also not have been possible with their design, if all the failguards wouldn’t have failed.

        But 2 in 60 years, both of western design, is still more than that study estimated.