Comment by pfdietz
5 months ago
If one tries to quantify the value of those deaths, using the "statistical value of a human life" (somewhere around $12M/death), one finds in the case of both wind/solar and nuclear, using those numbers, the value of those lives contributes negligibly to the cost of energy. This is unlike with coal.
This means that in choosing between solar/wind and nuclear, one cannot use the deaths/TWh to choose between them unless they are almost dead even in other costs (and they are not).
Aye, but with the amount of coal plants still running, I think the choice is between solar+nuclear or solar+coal
I don't think anyone is arguing nuclear instead of solar. It's both. We need both.
No, I don't think we need both. In particular, building new nuclear plants would be worse than just putting all that money into renewables + storage. The latter displaces fossil fuels more quickly and more cheaply.
As someone who's lived at latitude 52N, I can tell you for a fact that solar isn't always an option.
You might think wind is a good alternative, but Greta Thunberg will vehemently protest that notion [1](and she's got a point, believe it or not)
We have more hydro per capita than almost anywhere in the world, and that's still not enough!
Sure, if you live near the equator, you can get all the power you need by putting solar panels on your roof.
If you don't.... Nuclear is the best option.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/10/12/greta-thunberg-and...
1 reply →