3 ms·

Why do you think it's not meaningful? What would be the alternative?

by DangerousPie 9y ago

andrewprock 9y ago
Deaths per capita within 100 miles of generation.
- tboughen 9y ago
  Do you think coal mining deaths should not be counted if they occur 200 miles away from the power station the mine supplies? What about if the deaths occurred a continent away?
jussij 9y ago
Here are a few measurable statictics that Nuclear would win hands down: * Square miles of uninhabitable land produced/tWh * Fishing industries destroyed/tWh * Agricultural land destroyed/tWh * Peoples displaced/tWh * Lethal toxic waste produced/tWh * Clean up cost/tWh
- yellowapple 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure hydroelectric would actually win statistics 1, 3, and 4 "hands down". It'd also be a serious contender for 2 and 6. This is of course excluding coal, which I'm 92% sure makes even hydroelectric (let alone nuclear) look like a peaceful meadow full of fairies and butterflies by comparison.
  - jussij 9y ago
    All I can say is I'd rather be spending time catching fish on a lake created by a hydroelectric system, then cooking those fish at night in the camp site by the lake, than doing the same anywhere inside the Chernobyl 30 km Exclusion Zone or the Fukushima 20 km Exclusion Zone.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      If it's fishing you want, the water reservoirs for nuclear power plants make for good spots. I used to live over by the Rancho Seco plant, and its backup water reservoir (and the surrounding land) is still maintained as a public park even decades after the plant shut down (and was maintained as such even when the plant was operational, from what I understand). Good trout over there.
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      The Chernobyl 30 km Exclusion Zone is actually not that bad, apart from the slight radioactivity. Since there's no human interference, it's essentially a sanctuary for local wildlife.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    When you say "win," do you mean be worse? Because I think the others mean it as being better, and I'm getting confused.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      "Win" was (I'm guessing) used in a negative context to mean "worse", so I used it in a similar way. Kind of like how Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot tend to "win" competitions for murdering the most people.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        You think so? I thought they were using "win" to say that nuclear was good, since fossil fuels are much worse on most if not all of those measures.

Why do you think it's not meaningful? What would be the alternative?

andrewprock 9y ago

Deaths per capita within 100 miles of generation.

tboughen 9y ago
Do you think coal mining deaths should not be counted if they occur 200 miles away from the power station the mine supplies? What about if the deaths occurred a continent away?

jussij 9y ago

Here are a few measurable statictics that Nuclear would win hands down: * Square miles of uninhabitable land produced/tWh * Fishing industries destroyed/tWh * Agricultural land destroyed/tWh * Peoples displaced/tWh * Lethal toxic waste produced/tWh * Clean up cost/tWh

yellowapple 9y ago
I'm pretty sure hydroelectric would actually win statistics 1, 3, and 4 "hands down". It'd also be a serious contender for 2 and 6. This is of course excluding coal, which I'm 92% sure makes even hydroelectric (let alone nuclear) look like a peaceful meadow full of fairies and butterflies by comparison.
- jussij 9y ago
  All I can say is I'd rather be spending time catching fish on a lake created by a hydroelectric system, then cooking those fish at night in the camp site by the lake, than doing the same anywhere inside the Chernobyl 30 km Exclusion Zone or the Fukushima 20 km Exclusion Zone.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    If it's fishing you want, the water reservoirs for nuclear power plants make for good spots. I used to live over by the Rancho Seco plant, and its backup water reservoir (and the surrounding land) is still maintained as a public park even decades after the plant shut down (and was maintained as such even when the plant was operational, from what I understand). Good trout over there.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    The Chernobyl 30 km Exclusion Zone is actually not that bad, apart from the slight radioactivity. Since there's no human interference, it's essentially a sanctuary for local wildlife.
- mikeash 9y ago
  When you say "win," do you mean be worse? Because I think the others mean it as being better, and I'm getting confused.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    "Win" was (I'm guessing) used in a negative context to mean "worse", so I used it in a similar way. Kind of like how Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot tend to "win" competitions for murdering the most people.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      You think so? I thought they were using "win" to say that nuclear was good, since fossil fuels are much worse on most if not all of those measures.