And ‘everybody’ would be wrong. For a given amount of power generated, a coal power plant releases approximately 100 times more radioactivity into the surrounding environment than a nuclear plant.
That’s not to say that we’re talking about very large amounts of radioactivity. Not very far above background radiation. Overall the amount is very small, though it accumulates over time. It’s just that the nuclear plants release a very tiny amount of radiation into the environment, and coal plants release about a hundred times that, based on the same quantity of power generated.
Of course, meltdown scenarios are pretty severe. Even a single nuclear plant meltdown releases a vast amount of radiation into the surrounding environment. That risk has been considerably mitigated by plant designs that can’t melt down or present major risks to the environment, even if the plant were to be demolished during operation. Still and all, such modern designs are extremely rare in First World nations and unheard of in developing nations.
No related posts.
Which is a shame, because if we are to maintain our industrial and technological civilization, and continue to grow our economy, we’re going to need nukes. Lots and lots of nukes. Wind turbines and solar panels aren’t gonna cut it, though they might fill in some corners.
“can’t melt down”, hmm?
Humanity’s heard similar claims before. Usually just before we discover some NEW way for our tools to be damaged or destroyed.
And quite frankly, we don’t know THAT much about nuclear meltdowns yet. (Not that I’m eager to learn more – at least, not through post-meltdown studies.)
hm, interesting