3 ms·
I never really understood the arguments against nuclear. From the data I'm able to find, coal energy results in about 170,000 deaths per trillion kilowatt-hour
by chjohasbrouck 11y ago
I never really understood the arguments against nuclear.
From the data I'm able to find, coal energy results in about 170,000 deaths per trillion kilowatt-hours globally, compared to about 90 deaths per trillion kilowatt-hours generated from nuclear.
That would mean that burning coal for energy is nearly 2000x more dangerous than nuclear power.
Is there something more to the opposition's argument than safety? Or is this just a case of the public being misinformed?
- ericd 11y ago>coal energy results in about 170,000 deaths per kilowatt-hour Are you saying that running a gaming PC for 2 hours results in 170k deaths?
- Syrup-tan 11y agoIf the PC is powered by coal energy, he's saying something like that.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- c-slice 11y agoI think you mean giga-watt hour.
- slyall 11y agoActually the number seems to be per Trillion Kilowatt Hours. and the US rate is 15,000 or 1/10th of that. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/print/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
- chjohasbrouck 11y agoSorry, deaths per trillionkWhr: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
- khuey 11y agoIt's a classic example of diffuse versus concentrated effects. Burning coal results in smaller effects to a large population (e.g. the shortened life expectancies of Chinese breathing coal smog) while much less frequent nuclear accidents result in large effects to a small population (e.g. the people exposed to radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima and the resulting irradiated lands). Those 90 deaths from nuclear power are much more visible, while the 170k deaths from coal fade into the background.