4 ms·
Which is ironic to me because the US is less pro-nuclear than numerous EU countries.
by iaw 11y ago
Which is ironic to me because the US is less pro-nuclear than numerous EU countries.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoIt's because the U.S. is so hesitant to do nuclear that its inhabitants are so pro-nuclear. The U.S. isn't having to deal with nuclear's faults.
- sjwright 11y agoI'm pro-nuclear because it's one of the lowest risk forms of electricity production in terms of human lives per kilowatt, with the possible exception of utility scale solar. The occasional wind turbine workers and rooftop solar installers have been killed doing their work; in extremely small numbers but each turbine and rooftop only makes a minuscule quantity of energy. Hydro is usually very safe, except that the dams can fail and wipe out entire cities. When Banqiao Dam failed, 26 thousand people died. If you want to talk about the "what if" dangers of nuclear, you have to accept that Hydro's "what if" scenarios are far, far, far more deadly. Deaths per trillion kW hours 170,000 Coal 36,000 Oil 24,000 Biomass 4,000 Gas 1,400 Hydro 440 Solar (rooftop) 150 Wind 90 Nuclear Source: http://onforb.es/1JpfxzR http://onforb.es/1JpfxzR
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoThat link seems to be unrelated, you probably put the wrong one. I notice that Wind and Solar aren't much worse than Nuclear, though, and they don't produce highly radioactive, toxic waste we must safely store for millenia, don't take decades to set up, don't cost as much, do not require incredibly high levels of competence to be safe...
- sjwright 11y agoThere are plenty of sources with broadly similar numbers. Google is your friend. https://www.google.com/search?q=deaths+per+kilowatt https://www.google.com/search?q=deaths+per+kilowatt I'm all on board for wind and solar, we should be deploying as much of it as possible. But if we want to eliminate fossil fuels from the world economy in the next 50 years, we need more than just solar and wind. Saying that nuclear power produces "highly radioactive, toxic waste" is extremely misleading and demonstrates a core misunderstanding of the nuclear fuel cycle. This stuff is only scary because it has been pitched as the boogie monster by anti-nuclear weapons campaigners who were completely uneducated about the difference between the two. If you educate yourself about nuclear power, your views might change. http://archive.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa http://archive.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/mo...
- federico3 11y agoThis statistic does not account future deaths. If we were to stop using hydro or wind the number of related deaths would quickly drop. With a lifetime of 100.000 years, today's nuclear waste has a potential to kill tenths millions.
- sjwright 11y agoYour claim of future deaths has no rational basis. You have fundamentally misunderstood the nuclear fuel cycle, and some very basic facts about radioactive material. The stuff that "kills" has a short half-life. The stuff that lasts for millennia is almost safe enough to store in your underpants. Rather than parrot ignorant statements of others, please consider learning more about nuclear energy.
- im3w1l 11y ago> The stuff that "kills" has a short half-life. The stuff that lasts for millennia is almost safe enough to store in your underpants. That it is dangerous for millennia seems to be a popular belief, so a source would be valuable.
- ams6110 11y agoPeople hear "nuclear waste" and "lasts for millennia" and they insert the implicit "is dangerous" themselves.
- sjwright 11y ago> a source would be valuable. Seems a bit strange having to cite something I learned in secondary school science class, but okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_b...