Yes, agree - nuclear is not the option. However it makes me wonder, how is Germany going to get enough electricity to run "business as usual" ? Hopefully not by importing nuclear energy from France haha.

A few years ago the airline industry was looking at a major aircraft accident every day - killing up to hundreds of people every time - that future has gone away by dint of technology and hard work.

If you want a "western" lifestyle, with the associated energy use, you'd better hope that a similar effort improves the safety performance of nuclear power - because nothing else comes close to being able to provide it.

the figures were also obviously using current standards - with reactors mostly now 30+ years old what else would you actually expect?

However even with all that old technology how many people actually get killed by these nuclear disasters, as opposed to every year in coal mines and oil fields, and from pollution induced cancers and other forms of life shortening??

Like airliners, modern technology offers a great deal in the way of safety improvements.

Personally I'm in favour of not having to try to live with a 3rd world energy level.

I feel as though nuclear energy is safe but many governments lack common sense.

Placing them near earthquake fault zones and/or tsunami zones are accidents waiting to happen.

There NEEDS to be better methods of neutralising and/or containing spent fuel rods which are many times more dangerous than new fuel rods.

Any reactor that is past the safe operating stage should be decommisioned.

Some times the simplest, but most overlooked things, make all the difference!

One of the main problems is that they keep extending the service lives of these reactors.

If it was designed to last 30 years it should be shut down after 30 years.

Seems like their calculation is really trivial. They just divided the number of total operating hours by the number of meltdowns, thats all. Is that really enough for a scientific article? They neglected the fact that all the meltdowns were of old reactor types, newer ones are supposed to be much safer, and many other factors.

Bottom line is, we do not have enough data points to statistically determine dangers of nuclear with any reliability.

I also wonder what is the number of deaths per GWh of energy produced assuming their conclusion is true? Because I am sure it will be well below fossil fuels, thus making nuclear still the least evil option.

Originally posted by Maslo
Seems like their calculation is really trivial. They just divided the number of total operating hours by the number of meltdowns, thats all. Is that really enough for a scientific article? They neglected the fact that all the meltdowns were of old reactor types, newer ones are supposed to be much safer, and many other factors.

Bottom line is, we do not have enough data points to statistically determine dangers of nuclear with any reliability.

I also wonder what is the number of deaths per GWh of energy produced assuming their conclusion is true? Because I am sure it will be well below fossil fuels, thus making nuclear still the least evil option.

edit on 23/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

There are SOOOO many alternatives to nuclear energy i'm actually baffled we still use it at all.

Our planet's surface is 75% water, of which the open water (oceans and rivers) are ALWAYS in motion. This kinetic energy could easily be converted into electrical energy, same goes for wind and solar power.

But since this requires investments and a new infrastructure, i think it'll be at least 2 or 3 generations until we start using these energy potentials on a big scale (if humanity will even last this long).

Nuclear power, imo, should be replaced as a whole.