On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:47 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate
a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a
man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many
years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one
of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk
with a dustpan and brush.

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis, *anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad /
potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would
only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of
energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close
(but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

We have seen such promises before ...

Cheers, T i m