> No. I was arguing about it being adequate. A decision is always opinion-based. Science explains how the universe works, it explains but does not deliver decisions. During the accident experts described its worst potentiel effects and therefore the potential largest zone to evacuate and the evacuated zone was far (FAR!) smaller.

Just to recap:
2) I quoted the report (took three days) from the most important institutes in Japan, which stated that no further evacuations were necessary.
3) Even the opinions of scientists or experts are not science. These are more informed opinions, yet they are still subject to bias, context, and emotions, especially considering such situation.
4) Can you at least provide evidence for the "experts' description" you mentioned? After several comments, you're still claiming there was a panel of experts who recommended evacuating Tokyo, but so far, you've only linked a fake article with no sources.
5) Since opinions are opinions, and as you say, opinions are human choices, not science, they are largely dependent on the person or group of people making the decision. This demonstrates that it's not the fault of technology but rather human fallibility.

I agree with your point that opinions are not science. However, we are still waiting for you to substantiate your claims.

> You invoke 'science' and only use rhetorical 'hyperbole'. Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck!

I listed the source in the second comment: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp...

> Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...).

Nothing is perfect, but we have statistics, risk analysis, and other tools. These are sufficient to understand that nuclear is safe, based on science, not opinions.

> Indeed, most of 'risk aversion' here lies in the 'low probability'. Nuclear reactors provide only about 2.2% of final energy, many think that their past mishaps don't really entice us into building many more reactors.

Are you serious? Do you know that risk is calculated per GWh or years of operation? I'm sorry, but basic statistics and probability seem to be missing here.

> All hypothesis are highly debatable.

How? Prove it.

Before making a claim, you should provide evidence. Otherwise, it's a completely empty statement.

> The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer...

That's a good point. So the problem of overproduction costs doesn't exist because you can just install batteries, thereby raising the costs. Nice "solution".

Funny one.

> This is only part of the problem. Interest rate sure bump the total cost up because nuclear project are nearly always (way) late, but the root cause are the reasons for them to lag on.

But do you consider it before writing such comments?

I linked the article about it before.

The inefficiencies start from the lack of economy of scale, little investment, and excessive bureaucracy. A delay in a single piece (made uniquely, since open construction sites in the Western world are few) can halt the entire project. Besides, changing regulations can lead to redesigning certain parts, causing further delays. And delays increase costs because you have to pay salaries even if the work is stopped.

It's very simple, but you make it sound like arcane, obscure, unsolvable stuff. Please don't comment on things you don't understand. I linked the article in a past comment, so have the decency to read what I linked before lecturing me on things I've already covered.

> No. During the past 10 years they deployed on average 3.3 reactors/years, and nuclear now produces about 5% of their gridpower (renewables: 31%). Those are meek results. The best ones compared to the nuclear quagmire everywhere else, granted, nothing else. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/elec-mix-bar?country=~CHN

The fact that nuclear produces 5% and renewables 30% shows that they invested more money in renewables. What exactly are you trying to prove? It's their political choice.

> But a single one does so. Please name one.

You stated: "Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none."

I replied: "CANDU by design can run on thorium."

I don't understand. You first state false things and then change the question afterward?