He's still talking down renewables, which is unfortunate, but we got to the tipping point despite him so it's less annoying than it used to be.
> fact, in terms of lives lost, nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce energy.
I don't think this is true anymore even if you skip the "by far" and if you include the "by far" it's not been true for maybe as long as this plant has been in planning.
> I don't think this is true anymore even if you skip the "by far" and if you include the "by far" it's not been true for maybe as long as this plant has been in planning.
> Our study shows how these energy systems collectively involved 686 accidents resulting in 182,794 human fatalities and $265.1 billion in property damages. Across the entire sample, the mean amount of property damage was $388.8 million and 267.2 fatalities per accident, though when reflected as a median the numbers substantially improve to $820,000 in damages per accident and zero fatalities. Wind energy is the most frequent to incur an accident within our sample (48.8 percent of accidents), hydroelectric accidents tend to be the most fatal (97.2 percent of all deaths), and nuclear energy accidents tend to be the most expensive (accounting for 90.8 percent of damages). The article uses this data to present a set of unique risk profiles: nuclear, hydro, and wind energy are categorized as having a “high” risk of accidents; hydrogen, biofuels, and biomass “moderate” a accident risk; solar and geothermal a “low” risk.
Think about how much renewables have been deployed since 2014.
> fact, in terms of lives lost, nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce energy.
I don't think this is true anymore even if you skip the "by far" and if you include the "by far" it's not been true for maybe as long as this plant has been in planning.