2203 is around of the average aviation deaths per year yet we don't stop building planes. As always with Nuclear a lot of the costs are also because of the extra abundance of caution due to irrational fear - properly cleaning up a coal operation (which is what Germany is currently using for reliable baseload) to the same standards would cost just as much.
> This is not 'manipulation' but raw facts.
It's fearmongering.
The number of victims depends entirely on what you count as a victim. And it depends entirely on the chosen response to the incident much more than the incident itself.
> They took notice.
Always using the passive voice as if that would hide that this is something being pushed onto the general population.
> Moreover it is quite difficult to envision a solar plant or wind turbine fleet cause such disaster, therefore the "but we NEED to be exposed to such ordeal!" became moot during the 2000's.
No shit if the energy production is more spread out the incidents will be more spread out as well. And easier to ignore. But not doing less damage in total.
> 2203 is around of the average aviation deaths per year
Planes have no equivalent, replacing them would be difficult.
Nuclear can be replaced by industrial renewables.
Moreover planes induce a very tiny risk for those who don't use them.
Nuclear threatens even distant people (in space and time).
Note: my own brother died during to a jetliner crash (Swissair 111).
> a lot of the costs are also because of the extra abundance of caution due to irrational fear
Those requirements aren't irrational, they are devised after studying incidents and accidents.
> - properly cleaning up a coal
True, but not pertinent as very few (and not me!) suggest deploying coal plants. This is about nuclear vs. renewables.
> The number of victims
This is a truism, in which way is it pertinent?
> this is something being pushed onto the general population.
This is an unsubstantiated opinion.
>> it is quite difficult to envision a solar plant or wind turbine fleet cause such disaster
> No shit if the energy production is more spread out the incidents will be more spread out as well. And easier to ignore. But not doing less damage in total.
Err... In your opinion when a tsunami (or anything else) destroys a solar plant or wind turbine fleet an emergency evacuation is in order (just as during a major nuclear accident, due to the potential release of dangerous material)? Is it a joke?
2203 is around of the average aviation deaths per year yet we don't stop building planes. As always with Nuclear a lot of the costs are also because of the extra abundance of caution due to irrational fear - properly cleaning up a coal operation (which is what Germany is currently using for reliable baseload) to the same standards would cost just as much.
> This is not 'manipulation' but raw facts.
It's fearmongering.
The number of victims depends entirely on what you count as a victim. And it depends entirely on the chosen response to the incident much more than the incident itself.
> They took notice.
Always using the passive voice as if that would hide that this is something being pushed onto the general population.
> Moreover it is quite difficult to envision a solar plant or wind turbine fleet cause such disaster, therefore the "but we NEED to be exposed to such ordeal!" became moot during the 2000's.
No shit if the energy production is more spread out the incidents will be more spread out as well. And easier to ignore. But not doing less damage in total.