7 ms·

In the mean time coal power plants kill more people than Chernobyl disaster every year. "A United Nations study estimates the final total of premature deaths a

by wojt_eu 10y ago

In the mean time coal power plants kill more people than Chernobyl disaster every year. "A United Nations study estimates the final total of premature deaths associated with the disaster will be around 4000, mostly from an estimated 3% increase in cancers which are already common causes of death in the region." - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/) "Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european... [Edit] I just took top results from Google, without much research. My point is that even though I fear nuclear disasters too, we should try and compare numbers and trade-offs.

perlpimp 10y ago
coal soot is also radioactive. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
walkingolof 10y ago
Nuclear disasters are more permanent and thus a bigger risk, I live in a place where it rained on that day in -86, we still have not gone back to normal, fishing, hunting etc
- mikeash 10y ago
  How long will it take for the mercury emitted by coal plants to leave the ecosystem?
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    One of the standard arguments of nuclear power supporter is that radioactive materials exist naturally in soil and rock, therefore the additional radiation caused by by nuclear waste is neglect able. Is there any reason why nuclear power supporters do not apply the same logic to other energy sources?
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I would never make that argument nor have I even seen it before now, so please don't hold me to that standard. It's a completely ridiculous argument, false on its face, so not something even worth discussing. Edit: in case the sporadic downvotes indicate some confusion, let me elaborate. Certainly there is a common argument which involves comparing artificial radioactivity to natural sources. The infamous "banana equivalent dose" is an example of this. But that's fundamentally a quantitative argument about accepting small doses. It's not a general argument for neglecting the danger of nuclear waste in general. The argument that you should, say, not worry about the dose you get from the americium in your smoke detectors, or the ocean contamination from Fukushima, can be made based on this. That argument is fundamentally sound. But it does not imply that you should go swim to the bottom of a spent fuel pool and hug the canisters, or that it would be a good idea to have a play in the mud next to Chernobyl. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with making similar arguments for coal. For example, if the amount of mercury contamination in seafood was small compared to the amount of mercury naturally present, it would be quite sensible to argue that coal is not a major problem when it comes to mercury pollution of the ocean. The problem, of course, is that it's simply not true: the natural level of mercury is pretty low, and the contamination from coal power is substantial. When the FDA recommends limiting the intake of seafood for young children and pregnant women, it's not because of the naturally occurring levels, it's because of contamination due to human activity, of which coal is the largest part.
    - rimantas 10y ago
      Nuclear power supporter should point out, that radioactive emmisions of the power plant are lower than those of coal plant.
      - tobltobs 10y ago
        I guess you mean in the best case scenario and with a solved ultimate disposal problem for the nuclear waste.
        ucaetano 10y ago
        No, in the normal case. Coal has trace amounts of radioactive elements (such as uranium and thorium), burning it in large quantities concentrates those elements and release them into the atmosphere. And that's true even when you account for the risk of nuclear power plants and spent fuel. Coal ash is produced in gigantic quantities, and often stored in an open environment, while spent fuel is vitrified and far easier to contain. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
crdoconnor 10y ago
>In the mean time coal power plants kill more people than Chernobyl disaster every year. In the mean time, solar/wind is just as cheap to build as coal whereas nuclear (when built safely) costs more. Nuclear also benefits from government subsidized insurance (the nuclear liability cap).
- ucaetano 10y ago
  But you can't use solar/wind as base load. At least not yet.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)
    - ucaetano 10y ago
      The article talks about renewables in general, not just the current wind and solar technologies widely available in the market. Hydro can easily be used as base-load, as it is in Brazil and Switzerland.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
It's true that coal kills more than Chernobyl ever did, but that vastly understates it. Coal kills more people each year than all nuclear technology has killed in its entire history, including the bombs dropped on Japan. Coal kills in the neighborhood of a million people a year. Granted, most of those deaths are from dirty plants in less developed countries, but on the other hand Chernobyl was not exactly a shining beacon of safe nuclear plant design either.
- pvaldes 10y ago
  Sharks kill people also every year, but this fact do not makes Chernobil more safe.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What's your point? My point is that concern should be at least vaguely proportional to danger. Freaking out about thousands killed by nuclear accidents while ignoring millions killed by properly operating coal plants is not sensible. And if nuclear displaces coal, then it will save many, many lives.
    - pvaldes 10y ago
      This recurrent thing about how nuclear only killed one or two people or maybe five (all in Nagasaki), is getting really tiresome.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Are you saying we should stop discussing nuclear power's actual safety record because it's too annoying?
        pvaldes 10y ago
        I'm saying that discussion must stop cherry-picking and hiding variables at will. Like breast cancer rate increased for decades, value of wipping entire cities, billionary damage to economy, making the country easily vulnerable and a slave of security measures, agriculture and ecological problems. The only answer from this guys are "but coal is worse and sun can make you blisters", you don't care for guys that also die by X! and this is a red herring. Yes, everybody knows that cars kill a lot of people each year. Can we focus again in the elephant foot's problem?

by wojt_eu 10y ago

perlpimp 10y ago

coal soot is also radioactive. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

walkingolof 10y ago

Nuclear disasters are more permanent and thus a bigger risk, I live in a place where it rained on that day in -86, we still have not gone back to normal, fishing, hunting etc

mikeash 10y ago
How long will it take for the mercury emitted by coal plants to leave the ecosystem?
- tobltobs 10y ago
  One of the standard arguments of nuclear power supporter is that radioactive materials exist naturally in soil and rock, therefore the additional radiation caused by by nuclear waste is neglect able. Is there any reason why nuclear power supporters do not apply the same logic to other energy sources?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I would never make that argument nor have I even seen it before now, so please don't hold me to that standard. It's a completely ridiculous argument, false on its face, so not something even worth discussing. Edit: in case the sporadic downvotes indicate some confusion, let me elaborate. Certainly there is a common argument which involves comparing artificial radioactivity to natural sources. The infamous "banana equivalent dose" is an example of this. But that's fundamentally a quantitative argument about accepting small doses. It's not a general argument for neglecting the danger of nuclear waste in general. The argument that you should, say, not worry about the dose you get from the americium in your smoke detectors, or the ocean contamination from Fukushima, can be made based on this. That argument is fundamentally sound. But it does not imply that you should go swim to the bottom of a spent fuel pool and hug the canisters, or that it would be a good idea to have a play in the mud next to Chernobyl. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with making similar arguments for coal. For example, if the amount of mercury contamination in seafood was small compared to the amount of mercury naturally present, it would be quite sensible to argue that coal is not a major problem when it comes to mercury pollution of the ocean. The problem, of course, is that it's simply not true: the natural level of mercury is pretty low, and the contamination from coal power is substantial. When the FDA recommends limiting the intake of seafood for young children and pregnant women, it's not because of the naturally occurring levels, it's because of contamination due to human activity, of which coal is the largest part.
  - rimantas 10y ago
    Nuclear power supporter should point out, that radioactive emmisions of the power plant are lower than those of coal plant.
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      I guess you mean in the best case scenario and with a solved ultimate disposal problem for the nuclear waste.
      - ucaetano 10y ago
        No, in the normal case. Coal has trace amounts of radioactive elements (such as uranium and thorium), burning it in large quantities concentrates those elements and release them into the atmosphere. And that's true even when you account for the risk of nuclear power plants and spent fuel. Coal ash is produced in gigantic quantities, and often stored in an open environment, while spent fuel is vitrified and far easier to contain. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

crdoconnor 10y ago

>In the mean time coal power plants kill more people than Chernobyl disaster every year. In the mean time, solar/wind is just as cheap to build as coal whereas nuclear (when built safely) costs more. Nuclear also benefits from government subsidized insurance (the nuclear liability cap).

ucaetano 10y ago
But you can't use solar/wind as base load. At least not yet.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)
  - ucaetano 10y ago
    The article talks about renewables in general, not just the current wind and solar technologies widely available in the market. Hydro can easily be used as base-load, as it is in Brazil and Switzerland.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

mikeash 10y ago

It's true that coal kills more than Chernobyl ever did, but that vastly understates it. Coal kills more people each year than all nuclear technology has killed in its entire history, including the bombs dropped on Japan. Coal kills in the neighborhood of a million people a year. Granted, most of those deaths are from dirty plants in less developed countries, but on the other hand Chernobyl was not exactly a shining beacon of safe nuclear plant design either.

pvaldes 10y ago
Sharks kill people also every year, but this fact do not makes Chernobil more safe.
- mikeash 10y ago
  What's your point? My point is that concern should be at least vaguely proportional to danger. Freaking out about thousands killed by nuclear accidents while ignoring millions killed by properly operating coal plants is not sensible. And if nuclear displaces coal, then it will save many, many lives.
  - pvaldes 10y ago
    This recurrent thing about how nuclear only killed one or two people or maybe five (all in Nagasaki), is getting really tiresome.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Are you saying we should stop discussing nuclear power's actual safety record because it's too annoying?
      - pvaldes 10y ago
        I'm saying that discussion must stop cherry-picking and hiding variables at will. Like breast cancer rate increased for decades, value of wipping entire cities, billionary damage to economy, making the country easily vulnerable and a slave of security measures, agriculture and ecological problems. The only answer from this guys are "but coal is worse and sun can make you blisters", you don't care for guys that also die by X! and this is a red herring. Yes, everybody knows that cars kill a lot of people each year. Can we focus again in the elephant foot's problem?