[hpb42]

> billions of dollars' worth of safety measures

Is this a bad thing? Investing a lot into safety measures to avoid catastrophes seems better than investing significantly less because we assume is safe.

Could you elaborate on why this investment is an argument against nuclear?

I once talked to people that worked at Angra Nuclear Power Plant in Brazil and they said the real danger is actually the spent nuclear fuel. The power plant itself is safe due to many redundant safety measures, continuous tests and monitoring. I don't have a source for this, and don't take my words for absolute truth, I'm not an expert in the subject.

> kept from harming us by a large crew of skilled people

I'm glad to hear people working with nuclear are skilled ;) I assume people working in solar/wind/hydro are also skilled at their craft. And I'm sure you didn't imply that, maybe the phrasing wasn't the best?

[Kon5ole]

>Could you elaborate on why this investment is an argument against nuclear?

It is not an argument against nuclear, it is an argument against the claim that nuclear is safe.

If something requires a large staff of skilled workers and very expensive equipment in order to prevent harmful effects, it is of course not safe - wouldn't you agree?

Solar and wind require skilled people too for sure, but not in order to prevent a catastrophe, which was my point here.

[bluefirebrand]

The type of catastrophe that solar and wind need to prevent are "There's no sun/wind for more days than we planned for" which absolutely can be devastating and no amount of skilled people can fix