The Fukushima nuclear reactor crisis has provided anti-nuclear activists with an assortment of (unsubstantiated) scare stories for turning the tide of public opinion against nuclear energy. So it’s little wonder that few places have been so gripped by hysteria as Germany, home to a large number of eco-stalinists and chronic doomsayers in the media.
German warmist website klimaretter.de (climatesaviour.de in English) writes that this however is not the case in Finland. Despite Fukushima, Finland is still very much in favour of using this plentiful source of zero-emissions energy. Klimaretter writes:
Despite the bad experiences encountered building the Olkiluoto 3 reactor– which will be finally finished 4 years later than planned and at double the cost in 2013 – the government approved the new construction of two additional nuclear reactors. And approved is approved, ways Mari Kiviniemi, head of the government.”
And why not? Nuclear power has been the safest of all sources of energy so far, as I mentioned in a previous post, renewable energy sources have many more deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity produced than nuclear. The dangers of nuclear power are mostly hype, and nothing to do with reality.
The Finnish government reminds us that in Finland there is practically no danger of earthquakes or tsunamis. And klimaretter reminds us:
The emergency power supply in the event of a disruption of the external power source für is already with the old reactors are designed twice as safely as the Japanese damaged reactors.
One thing that the panic purveyors seem to forget is that there are concepts in engineering and design called “applying lessons learned” and “continuous improvement”. No doubt the Japan earthquake exposed the weaknesses of the older Japanese reactors and safety systems. ´But in the end, this will be a blessing in that the lessons learned can now be implemented into the design of the new generation reactors, thus making the safest source of energy out there even safer.
Silly, desperate argument: “What if a plane crashes into it!”
This is a silly argument because planes could crash into anything, and so then nothing ought to be built. What if a plane crashed into a hydro-electric dam? A chemical plant? A football stadium?
Like anything else, all we can do is reduce the risk. And the best way to reduce risk in energy supply is to use the system that has proven to be the safest. That choice is obvious.
Thanks to reader DirkH for this video of a test plane colliding into a conrete wall at 500 mph. Risk dispelled!