Sure. At least 1 million per year, because that is the amount of people that die due to the various illnesses caused by coal mining and coal power plants (lung cancer etc.) in the US alone. Assuming the liberal estimate of 60,000 deaths caused by Chernobyl in total (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...), the nuclear industry would have to give us about 17 Chernobyls per year to match the fossil fuel industry.
When we phase out coal, say in 20 years, the next acceptable number will be much lower. We need about 20 years to build nuclear stations, so we should orient at this new number, isn't?
When a next nuclear disaster happen, public will reverse it opinion again, so nuclear projects will be frozen and nuclear stations will be decommissioned, like it happened before. Do you have a Plan B for this case?
If a next nuclear disaster will cover a much larger area (due to evil intent), say half of a continent, how much cancer percentage will rise when people will not be able to escape to clean land, clean food, clean water?
> We need about 20 years to build nuclear stations, so we should orient at this new number, isn't?
Yes, I was being facetious, obviously 1 million / year is not a good goal. But considering that the total amount of radiation related deaths has not even reached 1 million total since the first bomb in 1945, it is unlikely any such number will be approached soon.
> When a next nuclear disaster happen, public will reverse it opinion again, so nuclear projects will be frozen and nuclear stations will be decommissioned
This has never happened for oil rig disasters that have released millions of gallons of toxic crude oil into the ocean causing untold damage to the global ecosystem. If we go all in on nuclear we're not turning around.
> Do you have a Plan B for this case?
Mars? The Plan B is just to not use as much electricity or convert a sizable portion of land to solar and wind farms. The public will not tolerate either option.
TL;DR the world's largest solar park can hold 459 Fukushima plants, which would generate over 13.5% of the world's energy supply as opposed to the 2.7GW the solar panels are currently generating which is 0.016% of the world's energy supply.
> If a next nuclear disaster will cover a much larger area (due to evil intent), say half of a continent
A terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant could not cause an explosion like Chernobyl because the emergency shutdown procedure would safely end the fission reaction as opposed to Chernobyl's mechanism which accidentally accelerated it. The worst that could happen is something like Fukushima where the core melts down due to a LOCA (loss of coolant accident). Three cores melted down that day and 12 years later there has only been a single recorded radiation death.
> how much cancer percentage will rise
20 years from now we will also have more advanced and successful methods of treating cancer - keep in mind that modern chemo vs. 1980's chemo is worlds apart and certainly contributed to the public fear as cancer was still mostly a death sentence. Now many types of cancer have been cured and the likelihood of survival has risen across the board. This is not an excuse to say that cancer is acceptable, just that it won't be a death sentence for the majority of people even if a nuclear accident did somehow cover an entire continent.
Also, Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was kept active until 2000! Operators were bused in every day following the accident. You can even go on tours in the city of Pripyat now and the resulting dose is just slightly higher than background radiation. In other words, the situation was resolved within a few years, and that was using 1980's technology. Today with technology such as robots, quadcopter drones, and advanced construction techniques (ie. the New Safe Confinement) it is unlikely that another Chernobyl would last even a few weeks before the core was covered up. It doesn't matter where it happens either; the UN and the developed world would not let an accident like that go unnoticed and unsolved in our connected society.
> A terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant could not cause an explosion like Chernobyl
Well mostly why Chernobyl is different is because their reactor was pressurized, and thus had the ability to explode (and spread core nuclear material over a large area). The only other event that has caused something similar without a pressurized reactor is one of the largest tsunami ever recorded.
But a terrorist attack on a power plant would need to come from the inside of the plant and to cause a disaster similar to either Fukushima or Chernobyl would require a significantly large weapon and fairly close to the reactor or where they store high energy materials (which is still inside the a pool of water).
How much can we «safely» kill by {solar panel roof installations, wind turbines, driving, drinking water, eating, taking showers, insert literally any }. You're creating an unreasonable position that I need to defend and you are not acting in good faith.
