Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Scouse]

Such risks get taken into account

Saying "they're taken into account" isn't an answer. What are the reasons these things are irrelevant? Or are you assuming that someone else has taken these risks into account?


I'm making the argument that they're being ignored:

Chernobyl bombed.
Zaporizhzhia shelled.
Nuclear enrichment facilities - containing uranium - bombed.
Fukushima, clear warnings not to site on the ocean due to tsunami risks - ignored.

Nuclear risks (and it's giant expense) are ignored.

 

[Embattle]

Saying "they're taken into account" isn't an answer. What are the reasons these things are irrelevant? Or are you assuming that someone else has taken these risks into account?


I'm making the argument that they're being ignored:

Chernobyl bombed.
Zaporizhzhia shelled.
Nuclear enrichment facilities - containing uranium - bombed.
Fukushima, clear warnings not to site on the ocean due to tsunami risks - ignored.

Nuclear risks (and it's giant expense) are ignored.

How many people died in any of those events? It is irrelevant because we covered the issues ages ago regarding safety, but I'll post this chart again:

 

[Scouse]

I could take issue with those figures (they're disputed) but for the purposes of this argument I'll take them at face value. Fair. (Interestingly wind and nuclear are level there, just wind and solar are orders of magnitude cheaper so that's fantastic data, cheers).

However, it's clear you don't understand risk very well. The day-to-day risks of runnning nuclear are indeed very low and have been borne out. Those figures don't count the absolutely astonishing potential outsize risks when accident, or as I've pointed out - deliberate damage - occurs. And whilst very rare, the magnitude can be utterly catastrophic.

But we do have an analogy - such as this study "Critically assessing and projecting the frequency, severity, and cost of major energy accidents":




Of the 4450 energy accidents globally they studied nuclear takes up 62% of damages - despite it being a handful of accidents. A tiny miniscule handful of the total number of accidents.

By 2040, the total cost of energy accidents could rise to almost $1 trillion. However, most of these will be in the Asia Pacific, and these costs are dominated by nuclear power, which will reflect almost half of all projected accident costs

This is because when nuclear has an accident, it's incredibly dangerous, and really difficult to deal with. The total costs associated with the meltdown at fukushima, a single incident, could exceed 200 billion.

What happens when we start bombing these things? Which we're already doing?

Unrealised potential risk is catastrophic.

We are disregarding that which hasn't yet happened, which is always going to be a rare event - and we're ignoring the things going on today that should have us screaming.

E.G. drones hitting Chernobyl - which has cost about 700 billion so far - or 18 of your Sizewell C's (being generous, I'm not factoring in the cost-overruns for Sizewell - and not adding the (still unsolved) waste disposal bill).

I've not seen a single argument that refutes any of this.

 

[Raven]

Nuclear reactors don't turn birds into red mist, or spoil the landscape.

All new builds should have solar.

We should lessen our footprint, not increase it.

 

[Gwadien]

I dunno, we're in the atomic age, I doubt we're gonna go into the Letsforgetsboutthatlastone Age.

 

[Embattle]

Nice waffle Scouse but still didn't change anything of significance, so no matter how much you type we are still getting more nuclear reactors.

Regarding solar panels and new builds:

Solar panels to be fitted on all new-build homes in England by 2027

Government to press ahead with net zero plans as Keir Starmer rejects Tony Blair’s criticisms of climate policy

www.theguardian.com

As someone who has solar I believe it is a win in most cases, as an example here are our figures from today:

 

[Scouse]

Nice waffle

Two scientific papers directly on the subject and costs associated with disasters is waffle?

I know, it's my fault. You've never been swayed by reason. It's not your thing. But regardless of death risks, the proven economic costs alone should give pause for thought.

 

[Embattle]

Two scientific papers directly on the subject and costs associated with disasters is waffle?

I know, it's my fault. You've never been swayed by reason. It's not your thing. But regardless of death risks, the proven economic costs alone should give pause for thought.

Yes.

Yes, it is your fault.