Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Who remembers this taking place.
Short news clip here
Longer more detailed explanation here.
Short news clip here
Longer more detailed explanation here.
I don't think their nuclear safety is being cut due to the sheer energy consumption in the USA. In fact, I would venture that much of their energy consumption is not related to electricity directly.
Depends what they were, would have been five minutes from disaster or as simple as not wearing a hard hat.So far.
The incident level to MW output is the key.
30 a year I would not call minor!
Depends what they were, would have been five minutes from disaster or as simple as not wearing a hard hat.
Does it list all 150 problems ?I doubt very much it's not wearing a hard hat.
If you think it's that you are deluded!
"defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage"Does it list all 150 problems ?
I'm sure there were a few serious ones but nothing bad happened so it shows the system works, of course one day it wont and there will be small accident, how many drivers get killed on the roads round the world each year ? Sometimes a risk reward balance has to be achieved and what alternatives are available to nuclear that are any better ?
The danger of statistics. How many accidents are reported.Actually according to Wikipedia two thirds of all incidents have occurred in the US.
And Nuclear only accounts for 20% of output
That is a shocking statistics
I live within 20 miles of one of those horrible reactors and feel quite safe.
Interesting conversation with NIMBY on wind turbine planning.I live within 20 miles of one of those horrible reactors and feel quite safe.