4 ms·

It's like airplanes vs. cars. There are several orders of magnitude more deaths in cars than there are in airplanes, but it is immensely spectacular when there

It's like airplanes vs. cars. There are several orders of magnitude more deaths in cars than there are in airplanes, but it is immensely spectacular when there are aiplane accidents, leading to a perception of unsafety. On the flip side, there will be at least one person dying in your city, TODAY, due to cars. But that is not spectacular and we gloss over it.

codingdave 8y ago
If every airplane crash poisoned the ground for 100 miles surrounding it, there would be a far different measurement of their impact. I don't know anyone who denies the safety record of nuclear if your only metric is human casualties. But that simply isn't the only impact.
- athenot 8y ago
  You are right, there are different metrics that should be considered. Yes, there is the risk of long-term damage to the environment. But we've also learned a lot from failures and really make sure we can minimize the impact so that failure modes don't condemn an area like at Chernobyl. The stakes are very high, so the precautions aren't half-arsed. But if we're going to have an honest conversation, we also need to consider the secondary impact of other energy sources. Windfarms kill large birds[1]. Also watch for flying ice [2]. Hydro power disrupts fish migration and affects silt patterns. Most importantly of all, oil continues to cause many wars in addition to health issues. All means of energy production carry risks and impact both nature and human lives. Some forms spread the risk out, some just shift it to less fortunate populations. Nuclear addresses the risk head-on and contains it. That requires every control system in triplicate; an insane amount of regulation, inspection, safety checks; and of course it requires a level of transparency so that the population can remained informed about the risks and issues. In the end, there must be a basket of methods used for energy production, to balance the electrical needs of an area. - Nuclear makes a good baseline for high levels of output. But it doesn't scale up/down very fast to match needs. - Wind and solar are great if the environment permits it but are vulnerable to weather, and produce several ordrer of magnitude less than nuclear. - Hydro is free except for the ecological (and sometimes human) disruption it causes when whole areas are lost to the water, and is dependent on weather (at a longer timeline). - Gas is a great on-demand source to complement the ones above but of course is a net producer of CO₂ and has it's own high ecological & geopolitical impact. - Coal... well that one needs to be discontinued for the reasons mentioned in the article. [1] http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-... [2] https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/ice-tossing-turbines-myth-or-hazard/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/ice-tossing-turbi...
- xelxebar 8y ago
  The impact on livable land is a good point, though we also should probably consider how many lives we're willing to sacrifice for said land. If swapping out nuclear for photovoltaics saves 100 km^2 of land but costs one more life on average, are we willing to pay that? Probably. I imagine that most people wouldn't feel comfortable paying 1 million lives though. Looking a the discussion here, https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy, it looks like nuclear saves such a large number of lives that the land cost has probably been worth it. Flipping the question around, non-nuclear energy sources also have a land cost. It'd be interesting to compare the ecological and land habitability impacts of other energy sources as well.

codingdave 8y ago

If every airplane crash poisoned the ground for 100 miles surrounding it, there would be a far different measurement of their impact. I don't know anyone who denies the safety record of nuclear if your only metric is human casualties. But that simply isn't the only impact.

athenot 8y ago
You are right, there are different metrics that should be considered. Yes, there is the risk of long-term damage to the environment. But we've also learned a lot from failures and really make sure we can minimize the impact so that failure modes don't condemn an area like at Chernobyl. The stakes are very high, so the precautions aren't half-arsed. But if we're going to have an honest conversation, we also need to consider the secondary impact of other energy sources. Windfarms kill large birds[1]. Also watch for flying ice [2]. Hydro power disrupts fish migration and affects silt patterns. Most importantly of all, oil continues to cause many wars in addition to health issues. All means of energy production carry risks and impact both nature and human lives. Some forms spread the risk out, some just shift it to less fortunate populations. Nuclear addresses the risk head-on and contains it. That requires every control system in triplicate; an insane amount of regulation, inspection, safety checks; and of course it requires a level of transparency so that the population can remained informed about the risks and issues. In the end, there must be a basket of methods used for energy production, to balance the electrical needs of an area. - Nuclear makes a good baseline for high levels of output. But it doesn't scale up/down very fast to match needs. - Wind and solar are great if the environment permits it but are vulnerable to weather, and produce several ordrer of magnitude less than nuclear. - Hydro is free except for the ecological (and sometimes human) disruption it causes when whole areas are lost to the water, and is dependent on weather (at a longer timeline). - Gas is a great on-demand source to complement the ones above but of course is a net producer of CO₂ and has it's own high ecological & geopolitical impact. - Coal... well that one needs to be discontinued for the reasons mentioned in the article. [1] http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-... [2] https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/ice-tossing-turbines-myth-or-hazard/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/ice-tossing-turbi...
xelxebar 8y ago
The impact on livable land is a good point, though we also should probably consider how many lives we're willing to sacrifice for said land. If swapping out nuclear for photovoltaics saves 100 km^2 of land but costs one more life on average, are we willing to pay that? Probably. I imagine that most people wouldn't feel comfortable paying 1 million lives though. Looking a the discussion here, https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy, it looks like nuclear saves such a large number of lives that the land cost has probably been worth it. Flipping the question around, non-nuclear energy sources also have a land cost. It'd be interesting to compare the ecological and land habitability impacts of other energy sources as well.