Need to do Expected value calculations on Nuke plants

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

People can say new designs or unlikely natural events will or will not hurt or help but we no longer have to totally speculate. We have solid historical evidence that should be used in future calculations. The money side is always used to justify or unjustify certain technology applications such as the high initial investment of solar. I just think we need to do total financial analysis on all the various options going forward.

I think a lot of the arguments against nuclear are more sensationalistic than factual. I don't mean to nitpick, but I would say 3 incidents over 30 years with hundreds of nuclear power plants in 40-plus countries is "solid historical evidence" for how *reliable* and safe nuclear power is compared to other alternatives.

I used this analogy the other day:
When a plane crashes, everyone on the plane dies. However, it's still statistically safer to board a plane and fly across the country than it is to get in your car to go buy milk.

[Saltheart]

If the wind in japan starts blowing south , 20 million people in Tokyo could be in serious danger. A plane crashes and 400 die. 400 hundred is not good by any means but compared to the possible 20 million plus , the nuke single incident has to be considered "big".

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

If the wind in japan starts blowing south , 20 million people in Tokyo could be in serious danger. A plane crashes and 400 die. 400 hundred is not good by any means but compared to the possible 20 million plus , the nuke single incident has to be considered "big".

A nuclear incident is absolutely considered big, but like I said, it's still statistically safer than all other options that generate a similar amount of power.