@elosha @yingfochung So when considering that risk – you have to take in account how it compares to other risks. And relatively – it’s really not that big. You also need to add the need for stable electric grid, and risks of continuous running of power plants, like deaths from pollution from other dispatchable energy sources (which you need, and which Germany replaced mostly with gas and carbon). And overall that balance is pretty good for nuclear.

@elosha @yingfochung I’m not saying it’s safe. I’m doubting the thousands of years uninhabitable claim – it’s at least somewhat habitable right now (though we don’t know how safe exactly. We know mammals can survive and prosper in good condition though).

As for dirtybombing – yes, they could do that. It’s a risk worth considering. That’d require such huge firepower that they’d actually do more damage attacking cities, or other types of power plants (like hydro…) and other infrastructure

@yingfochung You pointed to risk of attacks and said to look at Ukraine. So I did. It’s you who attacked a renewable source.

I’ll just add that 1 TWh of _wind_ power claims more human lives than nuclear (mostly due to maintenance people falling of the wind turbines). Only solar is safer.

As for environmental impact of making stuff uninhabitable for thousands of years – citation needed. Research in Čornobyl exclusion zone show that already after a few decades it’s a healthy ecosystem.

@yingfochung

> Dunno, lets look at Ukraine!

So do you know or not? What do you see when looking at Ukraine? There was a huge ecological and humanitarian disaster due to damage done to hydro plant, nothing such with nuclear – despite Russian attacks.

Let’s instead look at the fundamental assumptions of German Energiewende and wonder how that happened:

https://krvtz.net/en/posts/ideological-origins-of-energiewende.html