3 ms·

No, that's just not valid. One thing does not become less horrible because another thing is more horrible. The relative horribleness might change, the absolute

by onli 10y ago

No, that's just not valid. One thing does not become less horrible because another thing is more horrible. The relative horribleness might change, the absolute does not. If you are against coal and therefor for nuclear, that's your choice to make. I'm against both, and thus the whole "but coal kill people too" does not apply at all to my thinking.

vidarh 10y ago
The "but coal kills people too" - at magnitudes higher rate - factors in because it's not a matter of turning things off without replacing it. Turning off nuclear means coal continues to be used for longer. The death rates of coal are so incredibly high that it is immoral and irresponsible to switch off nuclear plants - the way e.g. Germany is doing - as long as coal is being used. The same applies to fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent to well maintained hydro (the caveat being "well maintained" - build a dam and you sign up for eternal maintenance or putting towns downstream at risk of destruction), though the far bigger problem with hydro is environmental impacts and displacement of people. The point is that these debates do not happen in isolation. It's not a matter of disliking one so we turn it off, and that's it. It's a matter of relative risk and relative damage. When you argue against nuclear, without giving another option, the reality is that today you argue for more dangerous, more lethal, more environmentally damaging options, because we are unable to build out sufficient replacement capacity of safer renewables, and lack sufficient storage capacity for them to be suitable for base load. The number of dead from the panicked early decommissioning in Germany due to their dependence on coal, for example, will measure in the thousands, not just in Germany but across Europe - they can't contain their air. The decision was a staggering display of ignorance of the relative risks, and part of the reason why some of us get really upset about these debates. It's not hypotheticals - peoples fears are literally killing people.
mpweiher 10y ago
All energy forms are more deadly than nuclear, sometimes significantly so, and that includes burning wood. Including solar and wind. So what do you want to do? Die? Because without ready access to energy the vast majority of humans will die.
- onli 10y ago
  > Including solar and wind. That's wrong.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    No it's not. Fatalities per trillion kWh: Solar (rooftop): 440 Wind: 150 Wind(UK): <1000 Nuclear: 90 Nuclear(US): 0.01 Last I checked, 90 is smaller than 440 or 150, and 0.01 is vastly smaller than 440 or 150. But maybe math works differently on your planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
    - onli 10y ago
      Went for another thing through my comments, and will take the chance to add an answer here. That table is not a valid source. That goes into the bigger pcuture of you deciding for yourself what fact is and what not, and starting to insult people from your "superior" position. I mean, I'm happy about that, it disqualifies everything you write, and I despise your position. That tables only source is a Forbes Article which has no further direct reference for it. It is coming form the head of one single man. But somehow for you it becomes objective truth. Also, it does not hold up even when just looking at it. There are no big explosions killing people for solar and wind energy. That means the deaths counted there include numbers like people falling from roofs during installation (even then, it's improbable high). However, the number for nuclear energy is that low that it is evident that deaths like "people having an accident on way to work" are obviously not included. And it does not show which numbers are taken for the accidents in three miles, the radiation leaks we had in Germany and France, Chernobyl and Fukushima. I would not be surprised if it were 0, 0, 56 and 0, which is ridiculous. It's one thing to criticize current medical radiation models, it is another to assume radiation is completely harmless.

by onli 10y ago

vidarh 10y ago

The "but coal kills people too" - at magnitudes higher rate - factors in because it's not a matter of turning things off without replacing it. Turning off nuclear means coal continues to be used for longer. The death rates of coal are so incredibly high that it is immoral and irresponsible to switch off nuclear plants - the way e.g. Germany is doing - as long as coal is being used. The same applies to fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent to well maintained hydro (the caveat being "well maintained" - build a dam and you sign up for eternal maintenance or putting towns downstream at risk of destruction), though the far bigger problem with hydro is environmental impacts and displacement of people. The point is that these debates do not happen in isolation. It's not a matter of disliking one so we turn it off, and that's it. It's a matter of relative risk and relative damage. When you argue against nuclear, without giving another option, the reality is that today you argue for more dangerous, more lethal, more environmentally damaging options, because we are unable to build out sufficient replacement capacity of safer renewables, and lack sufficient storage capacity for them to be suitable for base load. The number of dead from the panicked early decommissioning in Germany due to their dependence on coal, for example, will measure in the thousands, not just in Germany but across Europe - they can't contain their air. The decision was a staggering display of ignorance of the relative risks, and part of the reason why some of us get really upset about these debates. It's not hypotheticals - peoples fears are literally killing people.

mpweiher 10y ago

All energy forms are more deadly than nuclear, sometimes significantly so, and that includes burning wood. Including solar and wind. So what do you want to do? Die? Because without ready access to energy the vast majority of humans will die.

onli 10y ago
> Including solar and wind. That's wrong.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  No it's not. Fatalities per trillion kWh: Solar (rooftop): 440 Wind: 150 Wind(UK): <1000 Nuclear: 90 Nuclear(US): 0.01 Last I checked, 90 is smaller than 440 or 150, and 0.01 is vastly smaller than 440 or 150. But maybe math works differently on your planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
  - onli 10y ago
    Went for another thing through my comments, and will take the chance to add an answer here. That table is not a valid source. That goes into the bigger pcuture of you deciding for yourself what fact is and what not, and starting to insult people from your "superior" position. I mean, I'm happy about that, it disqualifies everything you write, and I despise your position. That tables only source is a Forbes Article which has no further direct reference for it. It is coming form the head of one single man. But somehow for you it becomes objective truth. Also, it does not hold up even when just looking at it. There are no big explosions killing people for solar and wind energy. That means the deaths counted there include numbers like people falling from roofs during installation (even then, it's improbable high). However, the number for nuclear energy is that low that it is evident that deaths like "people having an accident on way to work" are obviously not included. And it does not show which numbers are taken for the accidents in three miles, the radiation leaks we had in Germany and France, Chernobyl and Fukushima. I would not be surprised if it were 0, 0, 56 and 0, which is ridiculous. It's one thing to criticize current medical radiation models, it is another to assume radiation is completely harmless.