I have no problem with you thinking I have no credibility! It was not a question. It was your comment "The sum outcome is massive CO2 with out any time for regrowth to sequester the CO2 produced." No regrowth? No fuel, no new fires. You seem very confused. I am not answering any questions. I am responding to your statements. That is how an online discussion works; not by one party asking a series of questions and the other party answering them, but by a two way conversation where people express points of view. OK then. In your home town, would you rather have 1 person killed, or 115,000? (That WAS a question BTW.) Neither the coal death toll nor the nuclear death toll includes those who are suffering from long term exposure related illnesses. If they did, coal would kill millions a year. See, this is why that hyperbole comes back to bite you. Let's say someone looks up your hyperbolic claim, and discovers that those 300 workers were not subject to "extreme radiation exposure" but were exposed to the regulatory limit that any nuclear worker can be exposed to, then they were evacuated. Further, let's say they find out that the worst-case scenario is that one third of the emergency workers have a somewhat increased cancer risk. They would then conclude that you could not be trusted; that anything you say is likely an extreme exaggeration at best, or an outright lie at worst. Would that be a good outcome for you? Yes, it has. The Fukushima story has been re-written as a devastating disaster risking thousands of lives by anti-nuclear activists. I have zero desire to persuade you of anything; you have to want to learn before you can. Generally I post here because it's possible that others find this material interesting. But let's look at that floating nuclear power plant. First off, what can happen? A LOCA is the biggest problem for plants like that; loss of cooling can rapidly cause a meltdown as decay heat drives the temperatures higher and higher. A barge, with five sides submerged in water, has a huge natural heatsink and thus has a built-in advantage there. There is both cooling and water available at all times. But let's say that a LOCA occurs where all the coolant is lost and none can be replenished. What happens then? That depends on the size of the plant. Large plants, due to the square/cubed law, cannot radiate away heat fast enough, so they melt down. Smaller plants can eliminate heat fast enough via thermal radiation and air convection to prevent a meltdown. Large land based plants are around 1000 megawattts; these plants use two KLT-40 35MWe reactors, which are 30x smaller than the larger reactors. So they have a much stronger inherent resistance to meltdown. But let's say that, somehow, a meltdown still occurs; say a foolish (or malicious) worker wraps the entire reactor in asbestos insulation for some reason so it can't get rid of decay heat. The reactor could melt down and the corium would melt its way to the bottom of the barge, where it would be stopped by the water-cooled bottom of the barge. (Note that there is no way to prevent this cooling from happening, since the barge is literally floating in the ocean.) So now you have a very radioactive barge that can't be cleaned up easily, but that has not released any radioactive material. What do you do? Simple answer - tow it away from people, and park it someplace remote while the core cools down and becomes less radioactive. Hard to do that with Fukushima. Refueling accident? The barge is towed away and refueled at a remote, protected location. Terrorism? You can imagine a scenario where a terrorist sinks the barge. Then the reactors, with plenty of cooling, sit underwater and cool themselves for the next 30 years while their radioactivity decays. Certainly not an ideal form of power. But far cleaner and safer than coal - and with a far lower death toll overall.