3 ms·

The first DDG hit for "electricity production deaths per kwh" is https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid https

by jabl 9y ago

The first DDG hit for "electricity production deaths per kwh" is https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... (Not saying Forbes is a reliable source on this particular statistic, but maybe you can find a more authoritative one if you search?) As for scalability, I guess the argument is that wind is somewhat limited by suitable sites, whereas nuclear produces a lot of power on a small area, with fuel lasting for millenia?

alex_hitchins 9y ago
I believe the current assessment of the saftey are based on how many people have died related to each production method. I was thinking more along the lines of it's safety should there be a disaster or more with risk in mind. Nuclear power stations of old I thought were located by seas or other large bodies of water for the cooling in an emergency, as we saw with Fukushima. I'd guess newer designed, especially things like Fusion and Molten Salt wouldn't have this same requirement and be inherently 'safer'. Edit to say - I'd like to see Nuclear given much more attention by governments. As we aren't using a byproduct for generation (as with those used to refine whatever for bombs) we can do it in a much easier and cleaner way without the previous constraints.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Nuclear killed a ridicules little amount of people compared to many other things even if we included nuclear bombs. Even fukushima is as big a catastrophe as many like to claim. It's far greener than especially solar, there is almost no waste and most of it can be reused in new reactors. Problem is that it's toxic to be pro-nucleaer in this day and age. And new reactors saftemechanism are done via physics which makes the "china syndrome" impossible. Agree we need more investment and focus on nuclear but not holding my hopes to hight in this current political environment.

by jabl 9y ago

alex_hitchins 9y ago

I believe the current assessment of the saftey are based on how many people have died related to each production method. I was thinking more along the lines of it's safety should there be a disaster or more with risk in mind. Nuclear power stations of old I thought were located by seas or other large bodies of water for the cooling in an emergency, as we saw with Fukushima. I'd guess newer designed, especially things like Fusion and Molten Salt wouldn't have this same requirement and be inherently 'safer'. Edit to say - I'd like to see Nuclear given much more attention by governments. As we aren't using a byproduct for generation (as with those used to refine whatever for bombs) we can do it in a much easier and cleaner way without the previous constraints.

ThomPete 9y ago
Nuclear killed a ridicules little amount of people compared to many other things even if we included nuclear bombs. Even fukushima is as big a catastrophe as many like to claim. It's far greener than especially solar, there is almost no waste and most of it can be reused in new reactors. Problem is that it's toxic to be pro-nucleaer in this day and age. And new reactors saftemechanism are done via physics which makes the "china syndrome" impossible. Agree we need more investment and focus on nuclear but not holding my hopes to hight in this current political environment.