5 ms·

And coal mining and production is safe? Nuclear has the fewest deaths per kWh, period. It's really simple. Now, the cost of bringing new ones online is prohibi

by 0xfeba 9y ago

And coal mining and production is safe? Nuclear has the fewest deaths per kWh, period. It's really simple. Now, the cost of bringing new ones online is prohibitive, but shutting down existing ones was really dumb.

FooHentai 9y ago
I thought one of the major pro-nuclear power points was that old reactor designs were flawed and new designs address the issues. Isn't that point consistent with shutting down existing reactors?
- diamondlovesyou 9y ago
  No. Considering Chernobyl on its own, treating all radiation exposure cases which are above the statically insignificant cancer rate threshold as deaths, and coal is still more dangerous per kWh. [Source](http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/ http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclea...). After the accident, Chernobyl continued to provide power to Ukraine, up until it's last reactor was shutdown in 2000.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Deaths is just one measurement. Certainly making a sizable geo area uninhabitable is another. What about cancer is things go sideways? These are both legit insurance risks. I'm not trying to take an anti nuke stand, just pointing out deaths isn't the whole of the risk.
- dotancohen 9y ago
  It should be made clear that Hydroelectric has made an order of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear. Coal has made _three_ orders of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear. And whereas fish may thrive behind a dam, nothing humans can eat will grow in a coal strip mine, ash flow, or other coal-related topography change. Whereas in nuclear exclusion zones, wildlife flourishes.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Yes and no. But first, I agree there are always trade offs. We have alao been horribly slow in finding better energy. As for hydro + coal and uninhabitable land. I think it depends on what you define as inhabitable in the first place. Much of it is done in obscure (?) areas that few care about. Of course, this contributes to out of sight out of mind. None the less, this should be considered. On the other hand, nukes are closer to population, as well as near water. And, as mentioned, for these more people are more aware of them. You can also thank Hollywood for the fear(s).

by 0xfeba 9y ago

FooHentai 9y ago

I thought one of the major pro-nuclear power points was that old reactor designs were flawed and new designs address the issues. Isn't that point consistent with shutting down existing reactors?

diamondlovesyou 9y ago
No. Considering Chernobyl on its own, treating all radiation exposure cases which are above the statically insignificant cancer rate threshold as deaths, and coal is still more dangerous per kWh. [Source](http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/ http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclea...). After the accident, Chernobyl continued to provide power to Ukraine, up until it's last reactor was shutdown in 2000.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Deaths is just one measurement. Certainly making a sizable geo area uninhabitable is another. What about cancer is things go sideways? These are both legit insurance risks. I'm not trying to take an anti nuke stand, just pointing out deaths isn't the whole of the risk.

dotancohen 9y ago
It should be made clear that Hydroelectric has made an order of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear. Coal has made _three_ orders of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear. And whereas fish may thrive behind a dam, nothing humans can eat will grow in a coal strip mine, ash flow, or other coal-related topography change. Whereas in nuclear exclusion zones, wildlife flourishes.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Yes and no. But first, I agree there are always trade offs. We have alao been horribly slow in finding better energy. As for hydro + coal and uninhabitable land. I think it depends on what you define as inhabitable in the first place. Much of it is done in obscure (?) areas that few care about. Of course, this contributes to out of sight out of mind. None the less, this should be considered. On the other hand, nukes are closer to population, as well as near water. And, as mentioned, for these more people are more aware of them. You can also thank Hollywood for the fear(s).