5 ms·

This is THE statistic that nuclear proponents love to cite. There have been articles blasting about nuclear’s low fatality number as long as I’ve been on HN. An

by ebbv 8y ago

This is THE statistic that nuclear proponents love to cite. There have been articles blasting about nuclear’s low fatality number as long as I’ve been on HN. And just as long I’ve been pointing out it’s a bogus, stupid metric. Solar gets a higher fatality rating because of folks falling off their own roofs. It’s a tragedy sure but does that mean solar is dangerous? Of course not. Climbing up on the roof of your house is dangerous and everybody knows that. It’s also a number that tries to gloss over the worst parts of nuclear; the extremely long lived impact of nuclear accidents. The areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima are destroyed for generations to come. Finding responsible, safe ways to store spent nuclear fuel continues to be an issue. Renewables are cheaper and cheaper all the time. More countries are finding they can power a larger portion of their needs with renewables every year. Frankly we just don’t need nuclear and it’s serious risks and downsides.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
"It’s a tragedy sure but does that mean solar is dangerous? Of course not. Climbing up on the roof of your house is dangerous and everybody knows that." That danger is sure a relevant factor when evaluating energy policy. People can know the danger all they want, they'll still do it more often if governments subsidize or otherwise promote rooftop solar. I think it's fair game to compare those deaths to radiation poisoning deaths from nuclear spills.
mdekkers 8y ago
Frankly we just don’t need nuclear You lambast the actual statistics cited, but fail to provide anything yourself. How much TW is currently produced globally by Nuclear, and how much Solar or other renewables? What is the timeframe until there is parity?
- bhickey 8y ago
  The biggest risk posed by nuclear power is that we don't build it and carbon levels rise to stratospheric heights.
- codingdave 8y ago
  Some quick google-fu shows that renewables have already surpassed nuclear worldwide...
- nl 8y ago
  Eyeballing [1] (from 2016) it looks like renewable will surpass nuclear sometime this year. [2] shows that "other" sources already has, but I think that includes hydro-electricity. [1] https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/oecd-electricity-production-by-source-1974-2016.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/oecd-electricit... [2] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-IEO2017&region=0-0&cases=Reference&start=2010&end=2050&f=A&linechart=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Reference-d082317.76-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.77-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.78-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.79-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.80-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.81-2-IEO2017&ctype=linechart&sourcekey=0 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-IEO201...
  - korantu 8y ago
    True, but great majority of the renewables cited into the report is hydro, which is not very portable and cannot be considered as way forward.. not even mentioning all the flooding it causes
    - nl 8y ago
      Read the first link again. That splits out hydro and shows other renewables are (as I said) about to surpass nuclear.
      - StreamBright 8y ago
        If we keep turning off nuclear power plants just like Germany.
        nl 8y ago
        By my eyeballed guess, it doesn't need any reduction in nuclear power for the renewable sources to surpass it. The nuclear line looks more or less horizontal to me.
bhickey 8y ago
> The areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima are destroyed for generations to come. Along with basically every surface mine in the world. Garzweiler mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine), which I'd never even heard of until I spent 30 seconds on wikipedia, is nearly a tenth of the size of the Fukushima Exclusion Zone.
fabatka 8y ago
> Frankly we just don’t need nuclear and it’s serious risks and downsides. I guess you're not from India or China. It is coal that nuclear should displace, not renewables.
- nl 8y ago
  Except the solar/wind mix is a better solution than either.
  - korantu 8y ago
    Except baseload from wind and solar does not really work. Some energy storage facility have to be included, and then we would have to factor in human/money cost of that facility as well.
    - nl 8y ago
      Sure, or throw in a quick response gas fired generator. It’s a very effective combination, especially pumped hydro.

by ebbv 8y ago

emiliobumachar 8y ago

"It’s a tragedy sure but does that mean solar is dangerous? Of course not. Climbing up on the roof of your house is dangerous and everybody knows that." That danger is sure a relevant factor when evaluating energy policy. People can know the danger all they want, they'll still do it more often if governments subsidize or otherwise promote rooftop solar. I think it's fair game to compare those deaths to radiation poisoning deaths from nuclear spills.

mdekkers 8y ago

Frankly we just don’t need nuclear You lambast the actual statistics cited, but fail to provide anything yourself. How much TW is currently produced globally by Nuclear, and how much Solar or other renewables? What is the timeframe until there is parity?

bhickey 8y ago
The biggest risk posed by nuclear power is that we don't build it and carbon levels rise to stratospheric heights.
codingdave 8y ago
Some quick google-fu shows that renewables have already surpassed nuclear worldwide...
nl 8y ago
Eyeballing [1] (from 2016) it looks like renewable will surpass nuclear sometime this year. [2] shows that "other" sources already has, but I think that includes hydro-electricity. [1] https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/oecd-electricity-production-by-source-1974-2016.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/oecd-electricit... [2] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-IEO2017&region=0-0&cases=Reference&start=2010&end=2050&f=A&linechart=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Reference-d082317.76-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.77-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.78-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.79-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.80-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.81-2-IEO2017&ctype=linechart&sourcekey=0 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-IEO201...
- korantu 8y ago
  True, but great majority of the renewables cited into the report is hydro, which is not very portable and cannot be considered as way forward.. not even mentioning all the flooding it causes
  - nl 8y ago
    Read the first link again. That splits out hydro and shows other renewables are (as I said) about to surpass nuclear.
    - StreamBright 8y ago
      If we keep turning off nuclear power plants just like Germany.
      - nl 8y ago
        By my eyeballed guess, it doesn't need any reduction in nuclear power for the renewable sources to surpass it. The nuclear line looks more or less horizontal to me.

bhickey 8y ago

> The areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima are destroyed for generations to come. Along with basically every surface mine in the world. Garzweiler mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine), which I'd never even heard of until I spent 30 seconds on wikipedia, is nearly a tenth of the size of the Fukushima Exclusion Zone.

fabatka 8y ago

> Frankly we just don’t need nuclear and it’s serious risks and downsides. I guess you're not from India or China. It is coal that nuclear should displace, not renewables.

nl 8y ago
Except the solar/wind mix is a better solution than either.
- korantu 8y ago
  Except baseload from wind and solar does not really work. Some energy storage facility have to be included, and then we would have to factor in human/money cost of that facility as well.
  - nl 8y ago
    Sure, or throw in a quick response gas fired generator. It’s a very effective combination, especially pumped hydro.