4 ms·

Nuclear electric power production carries risks, which are outweighed by the expectations of lives saved by reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas production

Nuclear electric power production carries risks, which are outweighed by the expectations of lives saved by reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas production.

lostlogin 10y ago
Presumably you mean the risks are outweighed if better options aren't available. For example hydro is a good option if your power needs aren't too high and population quite small.
- justinator 10y ago
  ...and you don't care about destroying the habitat of anything upriver, or anything that needs to get downriver/upriver (spawning fish), or anyone that relies on those critters. And you don't mind that it's not a long-term solution, as silt builds up behind the dam until your dam is worthless. But yeah, dam away!
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Nuclear power warms water which is then usually dumped into rivers at a temperature higher than it started at. The waste issue is problematic and the cost (especially when factoring in cleanup and waste) is prohibitive to a small country with no existing nuclear program. Our dams gave been in a while here in New Zealand and the trade offs they require are vastly more acceptable to New Zealanders than the nuclear option.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > And you don't mind that it's not a long-term solution, as silt builds up behind the dam until your dam is worthless. You can let some of the water flow take silt away, at least the silt anywhere near the dam. That might mean you don't have a huge reservoir, but you can generate a lot of power without a reservoir at all.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      (By the way, I am extremely curious why this got a downvote, and would greatly thank anyone giving a good reason.)
      - Retric 10y ago
        First unless you remove the dam it's not going to remove silt as it's dropped out because of a change in velocity. Second dredging actually works and is vastly cheaper.
tobltobs 10y ago
How can you calculate the risk if the modus operandi for the nuclear waste management for the next few thousand years is not known yet?
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Clearly it's better to spew the radioactive waste randomly into the air, like our existing coal plants do. The solution to pollution is dilution, right?
  - bildung 10y ago
    > Clearly it's better to spew the radioactive waste randomly into the air, like our existing coal plants do. While coal plants do emit more radioactivity through the chimney than nuclear plants, that radioactivity pales in comparison to that emitted by both the nuclear waste and accidents of the latter. See http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-plants-release-more-radiation-than-nuclear-power-plants http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-pla... for sources. Also, nobody said coal and nuclear are the only possible technologies for creating electricity.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      What matters isn't how much pollution is released. What matters is the harm and suffering it causes. Nuclear has a long, long way to go to catch up with carbon-based fuels in that regard. I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. To the extent that it is a problem, the solution is stupidly simple: store it in Antarctica where no technologically-illiterate humans can possibly come into contact with it, and where we can reclaim it later if/when we need it. Also, nobody said coal and nuclear are the only possible technologies for creating electricity. They're what we have to work with. Renewable sources should be aggressively explored and developed, but they are currently not sufficient by themselves.

Nuclear electric power production carries risks, which are outweighed by the expectations of lives saved by reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas production.

lostlogin 10y ago

Presumably you mean the risks are outweighed if better options aren't available. For example hydro is a good option if your power needs aren't too high and population quite small.

justinator 10y ago
...and you don't care about destroying the habitat of anything upriver, or anything that needs to get downriver/upriver (spawning fish), or anyone that relies on those critters. And you don't mind that it's not a long-term solution, as silt builds up behind the dam until your dam is worthless. But yeah, dam away!
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Nuclear power warms water which is then usually dumped into rivers at a temperature higher than it started at. The waste issue is problematic and the cost (especially when factoring in cleanup and waste) is prohibitive to a small country with no existing nuclear program. Our dams gave been in a while here in New Zealand and the trade offs they require are vastly more acceptable to New Zealanders than the nuclear option.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > And you don't mind that it's not a long-term solution, as silt builds up behind the dam until your dam is worthless. You can let some of the water flow take silt away, at least the silt anywhere near the dam. That might mean you don't have a huge reservoir, but you can generate a lot of power without a reservoir at all.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    (By the way, I am extremely curious why this got a downvote, and would greatly thank anyone giving a good reason.)
    - Retric 10y ago
      First unless you remove the dam it's not going to remove silt as it's dropped out because of a change in velocity. Second dredging actually works and is vastly cheaper.

tobltobs 10y ago

How can you calculate the risk if the modus operandi for the nuclear waste management for the next few thousand years is not known yet?

CamperBob2 10y ago
Clearly it's better to spew the radioactive waste randomly into the air, like our existing coal plants do. The solution to pollution is dilution, right?
- bildung 10y ago
  > Clearly it's better to spew the radioactive waste randomly into the air, like our existing coal plants do. While coal plants do emit more radioactivity through the chimney than nuclear plants, that radioactivity pales in comparison to that emitted by both the nuclear waste and accidents of the latter. See http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-plants-release-more-radiation-than-nuclear-power-plants http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-pla... for sources. Also, nobody said coal and nuclear are the only possible technologies for creating electricity.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    What matters isn't how much pollution is released. What matters is the harm and suffering it causes. Nuclear has a long, long way to go to catch up with carbon-based fuels in that regard. I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. To the extent that it is a problem, the solution is stupidly simple: store it in Antarctica where no technologically-illiterate humans can possibly come into contact with it, and where we can reclaim it later if/when we need it. Also, nobody said coal and nuclear are the only possible technologies for creating electricity. They're what we have to work with. Renewable sources should be aggressively explored and developed, but they are currently not sufficient by themselves.