5 ms·

Fossil fuels simply dump the pollutants into the atmosphere, killing people without a paper trail.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Fossil fuel emissions and other pollutants build up gradually and can be controlled. You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. And nuclear power generation also emits a very dangerous pollutant: nuclear waste.
- Griffinsauce 10y ago
  > You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. No, you get kicked out of life when you get diagnosed with cancer.
- Nrsolis 10y ago
  I think you have a different definition of the word "emit" than I do. Nuclear waste is stable, does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools, and can be reprocessed if required. All existing spent nuclear fuel in the united states is stored on-site. It's been that way since the beginning of the industry. In contrast, particulate and greenhouse gas (including CO2) emissions from coal-fired plants migrate with the wind, often polluting areas far from the plant. I don't see how you can compare the two. It's true that spent fuel is very toxic but every single attempt to deal with this issue has been stymied with rampant NIMBYism and non-science based fear mongering. You can control the operational risks associated with nuclear power. Doing so with fossil fueled plants is not nearly as easy.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    >Nuclear waste is stable So long as it's stored in stable geologic formations, or controlled by stable human institutions. Where "stable" is a period of time longer than human history in many cases. >does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools Which are dependent on active management and security indefinitely. This is challenging as the service life of the plant where the pool is located and revenue is generated is less than indefinately. > can be reprocessed if required. Which is also a proliferation risk.
    - Nrsolis 10y ago
      I've got news for you if you expect guarantees about every possible risk you might face in life: We've had not one but several nuclear disasters in the past several decades and in each case the sky hasn't come crashing down. The risks from a nuclear plant disaster are localized and controllable. The risks from runaway climate change are global and uncontrollable. The planet is going to be fine. Whether human society survives is going to be a whole different matter entirely.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        >We've had not one but several nuclear disasters in the past several decades and in each case the sky hasn't come crashing down. Unless of course you're one of the people who lived in the nuclear exclusion zones created by Chernobyl and Fukushima, in which case, yes, everything you own and possess, very potentially including your long-term health, were destroyed in a matter of hours. Those residents can never go back for more than a quick temporary visit, and they can not take back their belongings because they've been irradiated. They will always be asking themselves if they got enough of a dose of radiation to cause early disease. Call that localized and controllable all you want, and if you propose building these plants in areas with no nearby inhabitants for many sq miles, maybe it works OK. The current system, where we say "Don't worry, it's all perfectly safe, we double-pinkie-promise that we won't make the mistakes those guys in Ukraine or Japan made, and if you disagree you're an idiot who hates science" is just not going to fly. This is not general alarmism about being unable to mitigate every risk in life. This is a comparative analysis of the potential risk profiles of fossil fuels and nuclear, and fossil fuels being much better because the cost of a catastrophic non-nuclear failure is much smaller than the cost of a catastrophic nuclear failure.
        Nrsolis 10y ago
        I would argue that if you compared the risk profiles of fossil fuels vs nuclear power you'd come to the conclusion that nuclear has and continues to have, by a wide margin, the safest profile of ANY energy source except maybe wind and solar. I'm only excluding solar because I don't think we fully understand all of the safety impact of the construction of large windmills all over the windiest parts of the planet nor do we fully understand the impact of solar panel manufacturing. When you account for the full lifecycle of fossil fuels, from the extraction, refining, transportation, and ultimate consumption and measure that impact in both short-term impact (coal-mining deaths) vs. long-term impact (climate change, pollution, cancer) you'd find that nuclear is the best option. I'd risk a %0.00001 chance of dying by cancer sooner living next to a nuclear plant vs. a 1.0% chance of dying in a road collision with a fuel tanker or a 0.05% chance of dying sooner with emphysema by living close to a coal-fired plant. (I made those numbers up by the way; but my order of magnitude is spot-on) As a person who worked in this industry, understands the economics of it, and has compared the costs of coal/wind/gas/nuclear, I can confidently say that nuclear can be safe and affordable as an energy source if we are committed to safe and conscientious use of it. (BTW, for a month, I slept next to a nuclear reactor that was approximately 500 feet away from my bunk. My total radiation dose for that trip was less than I'd get in the same time hanging out at Grand Central Terminal (a location that would it to be certified as a functioning nuclear reactor would be out of specification as emitting too great a dose of radiation to those who work there) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/facts.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/inter...
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >when handled properly That's the crux of the nuclear issue. Everything works great in the theoretical world where everything is handled properly, all factors are properly accounted for, and all tradeoffs were wisely made. That is simply not how the real world works, and Fukushima reminds us of that. No matter how many failsafes you put in place, they will, at some point or another, be breached. The question is then "What happens when every failsafe fails, and is that risk acceptable compared to the alternatives?"
  - fnj 10y ago
    > Nuclear waste is stable I am fighting an almost overpowering impulse to laugh and cry at the same time. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-...
- DiThi 10y ago
  > You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. Until we get a couple more of degrees globally and we'll see floods in many coastal cities. Not to mention destroying the stability of weather we had for ~12,000 years and allowed farming to thrive.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    That's not a malfunction at the coal plant, that's a failure by the government to regulate polluters and protect the commons.
    - opo 10y ago
      "Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO21. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year2." http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-air-pollution#.WN2HTRLyse0 http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fue... Ever wonder why you read that you should avoid eating fish because of mercury? "...Every state in America has issued health advisories warning people to limit or avoid eating certain species of fish due to toxic mercury contamination, many of which cover every waterbody in the state. ...Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury contamination in the U.S., responsible for approximately 50% of human-caused mercury emissions." https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/NWF-Mercury-Power-Plant-Factsheet_March2011.ashx https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/NWF-Mercury-... These are long terms effects of burning coal - in the short term tens of thousands die each year from the air pollution from coal plants. The failure of government is that we allow coal and natural gas to be burned when there are alternatives that are much better for the environment and much better for the general health.

Fossil fuel emissions and other pollutants build up gradually and can be controlled. You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. And nuclear power generation also emits a very dangerous pollutant: nuclear waste.

Griffinsauce 10y ago
> You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. No, you get kicked out of life when you get diagnosed with cancer.
Nrsolis 10y ago
I think you have a different definition of the word "emit" than I do. Nuclear waste is stable, does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools, and can be reprocessed if required. All existing spent nuclear fuel in the united states is stored on-site. It's been that way since the beginning of the industry. In contrast, particulate and greenhouse gas (including CO2) emissions from coal-fired plants migrate with the wind, often polluting areas far from the plant. I don't see how you can compare the two. It's true that spent fuel is very toxic but every single attempt to deal with this issue has been stymied with rampant NIMBYism and non-science based fear mongering. You can control the operational risks associated with nuclear power. Doing so with fossil fueled plants is not nearly as easy.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  >Nuclear waste is stable So long as it's stored in stable geologic formations, or controlled by stable human institutions. Where "stable" is a period of time longer than human history in many cases. >does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools Which are dependent on active management and security indefinitely. This is challenging as the service life of the plant where the pool is located and revenue is generated is less than indefinately. > can be reprocessed if required. Which is also a proliferation risk.
  - Nrsolis 10y ago
    I've got news for you if you expect guarantees about every possible risk you might face in life: We've had not one but several nuclear disasters in the past several decades and in each case the sky hasn't come crashing down. The risks from a nuclear plant disaster are localized and controllable. The risks from runaway climate change are global and uncontrollable. The planet is going to be fine. Whether human society survives is going to be a whole different matter entirely.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      >We've had not one but several nuclear disasters in the past several decades and in each case the sky hasn't come crashing down. Unless of course you're one of the people who lived in the nuclear exclusion zones created by Chernobyl and Fukushima, in which case, yes, everything you own and possess, very potentially including your long-term health, were destroyed in a matter of hours. Those residents can never go back for more than a quick temporary visit, and they can not take back their belongings because they've been irradiated. They will always be asking themselves if they got enough of a dose of radiation to cause early disease. Call that localized and controllable all you want, and if you propose building these plants in areas with no nearby inhabitants for many sq miles, maybe it works OK. The current system, where we say "Don't worry, it's all perfectly safe, we double-pinkie-promise that we won't make the mistakes those guys in Ukraine or Japan made, and if you disagree you're an idiot who hates science" is just not going to fly. This is not general alarmism about being unable to mitigate every risk in life. This is a comparative analysis of the potential risk profiles of fossil fuels and nuclear, and fossil fuels being much better because the cost of a catastrophic non-nuclear failure is much smaller than the cost of a catastrophic nuclear failure.
      - Nrsolis 10y ago
        I would argue that if you compared the risk profiles of fossil fuels vs nuclear power you'd come to the conclusion that nuclear has and continues to have, by a wide margin, the safest profile of ANY energy source except maybe wind and solar. I'm only excluding solar because I don't think we fully understand all of the safety impact of the construction of large windmills all over the windiest parts of the planet nor do we fully understand the impact of solar panel manufacturing. When you account for the full lifecycle of fossil fuels, from the extraction, refining, transportation, and ultimate consumption and measure that impact in both short-term impact (coal-mining deaths) vs. long-term impact (climate change, pollution, cancer) you'd find that nuclear is the best option. I'd risk a %0.00001 chance of dying by cancer sooner living next to a nuclear plant vs. a 1.0% chance of dying in a road collision with a fuel tanker or a 0.05% chance of dying sooner with emphysema by living close to a coal-fired plant. (I made those numbers up by the way; but my order of magnitude is spot-on) As a person who worked in this industry, understands the economics of it, and has compared the costs of coal/wind/gas/nuclear, I can confidently say that nuclear can be safe and affordable as an energy source if we are committed to safe and conscientious use of it. (BTW, for a month, I slept next to a nuclear reactor that was approximately 500 feet away from my bunk. My total radiation dose for that trip was less than I'd get in the same time hanging out at Grand Central Terminal (a location that would it to be certified as a functioning nuclear reactor would be out of specification as emitting too great a dose of radiation to those who work there) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/facts.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/inter...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >when handled properly That's the crux of the nuclear issue. Everything works great in the theoretical world where everything is handled properly, all factors are properly accounted for, and all tradeoffs were wisely made. That is simply not how the real world works, and Fukushima reminds us of that. No matter how many failsafes you put in place, they will, at some point or another, be breached. The question is then "What happens when every failsafe fails, and is that risk acceptable compared to the alternatives?"
- fnj 10y ago
  > Nuclear waste is stable I am fighting an almost overpowering impulse to laugh and cry at the same time. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-...
DiThi 10y ago
> You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. Until we get a couple more of degrees globally and we'll see floods in many coastal cities. Not to mention destroying the stability of weather we had for ~12,000 years and allowed farming to thrive.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  That's not a malfunction at the coal plant, that's a failure by the government to regulate polluters and protect the commons.
  - opo 10y ago
    "Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO21. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year2." http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-air-pollution#.WN2HTRLyse0 http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fue... Ever wonder why you read that you should avoid eating fish because of mercury? "...Every state in America has issued health advisories warning people to limit or avoid eating certain species of fish due to toxic mercury contamination, many of which cover every waterbody in the state. ...Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury contamination in the U.S., responsible for approximately 50% of human-caused mercury emissions." https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/NWF-Mercury-Power-Plant-Factsheet_March2011.ashx https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/NWF-Mercury-... These are long terms effects of burning coal - in the short term tens of thousands die each year from the air pollution from coal plants. The failure of government is that we allow coal and natural gas to be burned when there are alternatives that are much better for the environment and much better for the general health.