5 ms·

You are just creating straw mean to support your own belief. Comparing to other causes of death is hardly relevant. It's only relevant if you weigh two options

You are just creating straw mean to support your own belief. Comparing to other causes of death is hardly relevant. It's only relevant if you weigh two options against each other. So comparing coal to nuclear is kind of valid, except that coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power. Also, if you really want to nitpick, then you'd also have to count the lives that could have been saved with the money that now goes into cleaning up Fukushima, and so on and so on. Tsunami deaths are not an alternative to radiation deaths, so the comparison is bullshit. Edit: I would like to reply to your comments, but HN doesn't let me post more comments atm. Fwiw, I don't think you are correct in claiming nobody campaigns against coal power. For a recent example, look at Elon Musks presentation of their battery. Also, remember global warming? I seem to remember a lot of articles about that, which tend to mention fossil fuels as culprits.

simoncion 11y ago
While it is true that coal is not the only non-nuclear power generation mechanism, it is -by far- the most common in the US. It is also true that > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly. And yet, we don't hear people screaming to shut down coal power plants nationwide. We don't hear this, despite the fact that they are demonstrably more dangerous than nuclear power plants. This is one of the reasons people are irked by folks who try to use Fukishima to claim that nuclear power generation is super-dangerous-mmkay. I'm not going address your tsunami-deaths vs. radiation-deaths comment. A close and careful re-reading of ggreer's comment should help you to understand why.
- Trombone12 11y ago
  Coal is the most common in the US and honestly you should have stopped relying on it several decades ago. But of course, you got the nukes so you needn't bother with paying for your share of the climate change damages.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Trust me, if could wave a wand and make people behave rationally and largely in the long-term interests of the human race, I would. :)
  - ArtDev 11y ago
    In the Northwestern US we get most of our power from hydropower and wind. Coal has a massive human cost in human health that makes it absurdly expensive overall. Personally, I would like to see and end to coal and nuclear power.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      Why would you like to see an end to nuclear power?
- mackwic 11y ago
  I suggest you to learn a bit about power grid engineering. Basically, the fact that we can't store electricity means that when you power on your toaster, somewhere a power plant has to increase its power to compensate. But the nuclear power plant takes up to 2 days to startup. It's not sustainable for the daily life where consumption change every hour. That's why there is the need for more agile power plant, where fuel, gas, and coal are suitable. Gas being the most agile but the less efficient, fuel and coal being used as the middle between gas and nuclear, depending of the price of each resource. This is an engineering constraint before anything else.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    I know that nuclear power is base-load power, not peaking power. Infrastructure is something of a passing interest of mine. :) Last I checked, the majority of the US's power comes from coal-fired power plants. If there was the political will and public understanding, we could likely replace pretty much all of that with nuclear plants, reserving coal-fired, or oil-fired (or pumped-storage hydro, or flywheel storage, or...) plants to meet peak power demands.
    - mackwic 11y ago
      Well, I have to say I don't know the US infrastructure enough to have a bold opinion, but I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). The European power grid is very tight and well-meshed, this is why we can let our nuclear power plant and sell electricity to Switzerland, Germany or Netherlands or buy it. I guess it's not as well interconnected in the US, so that states can't easily lend power which disable the use of nuclear power plant for many states ?
      - simoncion 11y ago
        I think that the US either has a national power grid, or has one for the West and East halves of the country. Obviously, throwing power across the whole damn continent is far less efficient than just throwing it across a state. I've -very recently- heard people making the claim that Texas has its own grid, but that's news to me. Maybe the situation in Texas is that they have all the power gen capacity that they need within the state, and are also hooked into the national grid. shrug > I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). Anti-nuke hysteria is toxic to sound planning and design. :(
tinco 11y ago
What is the other alternative to nuclear power?
- simoncion 11y ago
  And (before you answer), make sure to read Scott Alexander's Livejournal post (linked by ggreer above) in its entirety. Make sure to pay especially careful attention to the last five paragraphs. :)
  - ju-st 11y ago
    This diagramm shows that renewables are replacing nuclear power in Germany, not coal. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/File:Ene...
    - simoncion 11y ago
      The Germany situation is mentioned in Scott Alexander's Livejournal post, linked above. Keep in mind that that post was written a little while after the tsunami came in and wrecked stuff, so it's pretty old. Nuclear plants are really good base-load plants. I guess that you can design a national power grid that's supplied largely by renewables, but I suspect that it's very hard and not cheap.
      - afterburner 11y ago
        > it's very hard and not cheap That also describes nuclear power.
        simoncion 11y ago
        1) Infrastructure projects always appear expensive to the layman. The correct way to price power generation projects is to look at the expected actual cost per MW over the lifetime of the generation facility, and to factor in -as best you can- actual externalities related to the operation of the facility. 2) As I understand it, the hard part of nuclear power isn't the engineering and construction; that's a solved problem. The hard part is fighting pervasive, irrational anti-nuclear-power sentiment.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
"So comparing coal to nuclear is kind of valid, except that coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power." All of the other alternatives cause more deaths. All of them. Dam disasters have been mentioned several times. Wind requires people working on high towers (and sometimes falling off). Solar electric uses extremely nasty semiconductor processes, and requires that people climb on roofs. Passive solar -- roofs again. Oil production and distribution is dangerous. Natural gas production and distribution is dangerous. Coal production and distribution is horrific (though not nearly as bad as it once was, it's still pretty bad). Nuclear power has the lowest death rate per kWh generated of any energy production method known. By far.

simoncion 11y ago

While it is true that coal is not the only non-nuclear power generation mechanism, it is -by far- the most common in the US. It is also true that > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly. And yet, we don't hear people screaming to shut down coal power plants nationwide. We don't hear this, despite the fact that they are demonstrably more dangerous than nuclear power plants. This is one of the reasons people are irked by folks who try to use Fukishima to claim that nuclear power generation is super-dangerous-mmkay. I'm not going address your tsunami-deaths vs. radiation-deaths comment. A close and careful re-reading of ggreer's comment should help you to understand why.

Trombone12 11y ago
Coal is the most common in the US and honestly you should have stopped relying on it several decades ago. But of course, you got the nukes so you needn't bother with paying for your share of the climate change damages.
- simoncion 11y ago
  Trust me, if could wave a wand and make people behave rationally and largely in the long-term interests of the human race, I would. :)
- ArtDev 11y ago
  In the Northwestern US we get most of our power from hydropower and wind. Coal has a massive human cost in human health that makes it absurdly expensive overall. Personally, I would like to see and end to coal and nuclear power.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Why would you like to see an end to nuclear power?
mackwic 11y ago
I suggest you to learn a bit about power grid engineering. Basically, the fact that we can't store electricity means that when you power on your toaster, somewhere a power plant has to increase its power to compensate. But the nuclear power plant takes up to 2 days to startup. It's not sustainable for the daily life where consumption change every hour. That's why there is the need for more agile power plant, where fuel, gas, and coal are suitable. Gas being the most agile but the less efficient, fuel and coal being used as the middle between gas and nuclear, depending of the price of each resource. This is an engineering constraint before anything else.
- simoncion 11y ago
  I know that nuclear power is base-load power, not peaking power. Infrastructure is something of a passing interest of mine. :) Last I checked, the majority of the US's power comes from coal-fired power plants. If there was the political will and public understanding, we could likely replace pretty much all of that with nuclear plants, reserving coal-fired, or oil-fired (or pumped-storage hydro, or flywheel storage, or...) plants to meet peak power demands.
  - mackwic 11y ago
    Well, I have to say I don't know the US infrastructure enough to have a bold opinion, but I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). The European power grid is very tight and well-meshed, this is why we can let our nuclear power plant and sell electricity to Switzerland, Germany or Netherlands or buy it. I guess it's not as well interconnected in the US, so that states can't easily lend power which disable the use of nuclear power plant for many states ?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      I think that the US either has a national power grid, or has one for the West and East halves of the country. Obviously, throwing power across the whole damn continent is far less efficient than just throwing it across a state. I've -very recently- heard people making the claim that Texas has its own grid, but that's news to me. Maybe the situation in Texas is that they have all the power gen capacity that they need within the state, and are also hooked into the national grid. shrug > I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). Anti-nuke hysteria is toxic to sound planning and design. :(

tinco 11y ago

What is the other alternative to nuclear power?

simoncion 11y ago
And (before you answer), make sure to read Scott Alexander's Livejournal post (linked by ggreer above) in its entirety. Make sure to pay especially careful attention to the last five paragraphs. :)
- ju-st 11y ago
  This diagramm shows that renewables are replacing nuclear power in Germany, not coal. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/File:Ene...
  - simoncion 11y ago
    The Germany situation is mentioned in Scott Alexander's Livejournal post, linked above. Keep in mind that that post was written a little while after the tsunami came in and wrecked stuff, so it's pretty old. Nuclear plants are really good base-load plants. I guess that you can design a national power grid that's supplied largely by renewables, but I suspect that it's very hard and not cheap.
    - afterburner 11y ago
      > it's very hard and not cheap That also describes nuclear power.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        1) Infrastructure projects always appear expensive to the layman. The correct way to price power generation projects is to look at the expected actual cost per MW over the lifetime of the generation facility, and to factor in -as best you can- actual externalities related to the operation of the facility. 2) As I understand it, the hard part of nuclear power isn't the engineering and construction; that's a solved problem. The hard part is fighting pervasive, irrational anti-nuclear-power sentiment.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

"So comparing coal to nuclear is kind of valid, except that coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power." All of the other alternatives cause more deaths. All of them. Dam disasters have been mentioned several times. Wind requires people working on high towers (and sometimes falling off). Solar electric uses extremely nasty semiconductor processes, and requires that people climb on roofs. Passive solar -- roofs again. Oil production and distribution is dangerous. Natural gas production and distribution is dangerous. Coal production and distribution is horrific (though not nearly as bad as it once was, it's still pretty bad). Nuclear power has the lowest death rate per kWh generated of any energy production method known. By far.