Well, why do reactors grow old to begin with? Because nuclear isn't an area where funding for research is pouring in. Had we not pulled the nuclear handbreak, we wouldn't be stuck with aging reactors in the first place.

Now that we have them though, why can't we just shut them down? Because of the energy deficit that would create since we're still pulling on the nuclear handbreak.

You've got a point, but we still need to use these reactors while we build more modern, safer ones to replace them.

It won't be pretty.

Not likely, as the gap is about 4000x

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...

You underestimate the power of a good couple INES-7 incidents.

I think you underestimate the power of coal plant incidents and hydropower incidents. They're no joke.

Chernobyl, an INES-7 killed 56 people. Plus another 4000 from radiation.

As previously linked, check these out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

The Great Smog of London killed twelve million people. Banqiao Dam killed 171 000 and destroyed homes for another eleven million people.

Minamata and Bhopal were chemical plants, not power generation plants. Dam failures are always ugly, but they are rather predictable and preventable. And the Great Smog of London killed more people than Chernobyl but was caused by low-grade coal burning in low-tech furnaces. Even if we buy the suspicious number of 12 million, it's not a coal power plant accident.

Don't get me wrong. I like nuclear. I just know it's dangerous and the consequences of one accident can be pretty scary and long lasting.

Actually, it's twelve thousand. That was a typo.