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.
Comment on Would nuclear reactors be feasible everywhere?
redballooon@lemm.ee 10 months 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.
Rakonat@lemmy.world 10 months ago
redballooon@lemm.ee 10 months 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.
Maalus@lemmy.world 10 months 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 10 months ago
True but 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.
In 2023 the alternative is not nuclear vs coal, but nuclear vs wind and solar.
Rakonat@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Pitting nuclear against wind and solar is stupid given how much they compliment each other.
jasory@programming.dev 8 months ago
“Dealt with Chernobyl for years…”
You realise that all the estimated premature deaths are less than respiratory issues from air pollution. We could have a Chernobyl every year and it would be an improvement.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 10 months 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.