4 ms·

How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?

by zajd 11y ago

dredmorbius 11y ago
False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures). More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.
- zajd 11y ago
  Actually, it is http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#587be0a549d2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    That's not accessible. As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima. Actually, I've previously discussed both here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are_your_arguments_concerning_nuclear_power/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are... NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past. The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).
    - wbc 11y ago
      the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        One of the appendices is risks of differrent generating methods. Should show up in the table of contents. And yeah, I know it's long....
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        Starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf And p. 745: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf

How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?

by zajd 11y ago

How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?

False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures). More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.

zajd 11y ago
Actually, it is http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#587be0a549d2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  That's not accessible. As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima. Actually, I've previously discussed both here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are_your_arguments_concerning_nuclear_power/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are... NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past. The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).
  - wbc 11y ago
    the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      One of the appendices is risks of differrent generating methods. Should show up in the table of contents. And yeah, I know it's long....
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      Starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf And p. 745: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf