4 ms·

Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. Even solar plants burn down or a wind mill may fall over. All of this is ridiculous compare

Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. Even solar plants burn down or a wind mill may fall over. All of this is ridiculous compared to a nuclear fallout. But it says much that you chose coal. Another energy source that is on the way to be abolished. PS. I may have taken too many deep breaths when the Tschernobyl cloud moved over me.

saagarjha 8y ago
> Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. > All of this is ridiculous compared to a nuclear fallout. Your response gives me the feeling that you're significantly underestimating the number of deaths caused by power generation using coal. It's not a "handful" of people–it's more like a million people, per year.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). You've set up this straw man to point away from the actual issue and it's quite funny since it's what the industry does. I guess their advertising works ;)
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. Not anytime soon. > I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people, while nuclear fallout is "ridiculous". Also, I'd rather prefer if you didn't belittle me. I don't particularly care personally, but it's not adding anything to the argument so it's just extra stuff I need to read.
    - Krasnol 8y ago
      > Not anytime soon. What is "soon"? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fir... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-says-too-early-to-exit-coal-in-2035-idUSKCN1LW0GM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-say... Especially considering nuclear waste. (see how desperately I try to get back to the topic?) > And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people Because _accidents_ just do that.... Nothing anymore on the topic? Nuclear power you remember? Waste, accidents?
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Many countries, notably India and China, are adding nuclear power to their electrical grids to supply base load. Also, nuclear accidents, while large, are very rare–especially with regards to how much power each plant generates. So per MWh you end up with a much, much lower casualty rate as compared to other power sources–coal, in particular, leads to many deaths in the process of mining it, breathing in its pollution (which many in this thread have mentioned is radioactive), etc.
        Krasnol 8y ago
        I have no idea how this "many countries"-argument does make the waste or accident problem go away or is even related to it but actually China has not approved any new nuclear reactors between 2016 and 2017 and only 3 in 2017 which is a huge reduction. All this because of renewables. Solar is expected to become China's cheapest source of electricity, surpassing natural gas by 2020 and coal by 2030. China is ranked first in the world by installed capacity of hydropower, solar and wind. And India slashed plans for new nuclear reactors by two-thirds. However...back to the actual topic: > So per MWh you end up with a much, much lower casualty rate as compared to other power sources I wonder how you get to this. How do you know how many Japanese citizens will die earlier of cancer because of Fukushima? How do you know, I won't die earlier because of Chernobyl? I mean, just comparing the accidents is ridiculous. An nuclear accident leads to dead land. You have to remove huge areas of soil and the impact through contaminated water is not even properly measurable. The costs of nuclear disasters are so far beyond every mine accident that it's not even worth mentioning. All this is a growing problem since we're faced with old nuclear reactors that are being kept alive for the sake of revenues. It's a huge issue for Germany for example being faced with old nuclear power plants leaking and breaking all the time just behind the border. This will happen more often and the poorer the country owning one is, the greater is the risk. We again didn't even touch the WASTE as you seem to avoid it at all costs. And as I've said several times over: I don't want to replace it nuclear with coal. Please stop dragging your straw man into this over and over. We are in the 21st century and there are alternatives.

saagarjha 8y ago

> Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. > All of this is ridiculous compared to a nuclear fallout. Your response gives me the feeling that you're significantly underestimating the number of deaths caused by power generation using coal. It's not a "handful" of people–it's more like a million people, per year.

Krasnol 8y ago
As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). You've set up this straw man to point away from the actual issue and it's quite funny since it's what the industry does. I guess their advertising works ;)
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. Not anytime soon. > I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people, while nuclear fallout is "ridiculous". Also, I'd rather prefer if you didn't belittle me. I don't particularly care personally, but it's not adding anything to the argument so it's just extra stuff I need to read.
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    > Not anytime soon. What is "soon"? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fir... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-says-too-early-to-exit-coal-in-2035-idUSKCN1LW0GM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-say... Especially considering nuclear waste. (see how desperately I try to get back to the topic?) > And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people Because _accidents_ just do that.... Nothing anymore on the topic? Nuclear power you remember? Waste, accidents?
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Many countries, notably India and China, are adding nuclear power to their electrical grids to supply base load. Also, nuclear accidents, while large, are very rare–especially with regards to how much power each plant generates. So per MWh you end up with a much, much lower casualty rate as compared to other power sources–coal, in particular, leads to many deaths in the process of mining it, breathing in its pollution (which many in this thread have mentioned is radioactive), etc.
      - Krasnol 8y ago
        I have no idea how this "many countries"-argument does make the waste or accident problem go away or is even related to it but actually China has not approved any new nuclear reactors between 2016 and 2017 and only 3 in 2017 which is a huge reduction. All this because of renewables. Solar is expected to become China's cheapest source of electricity, surpassing natural gas by 2020 and coal by 2030. China is ranked first in the world by installed capacity of hydropower, solar and wind. And India slashed plans for new nuclear reactors by two-thirds. However...back to the actual topic: > So per MWh you end up with a much, much lower casualty rate as compared to other power sources I wonder how you get to this. How do you know how many Japanese citizens will die earlier of cancer because of Fukushima? How do you know, I won't die earlier because of Chernobyl? I mean, just comparing the accidents is ridiculous. An nuclear accident leads to dead land. You have to remove huge areas of soil and the impact through contaminated water is not even properly measurable. The costs of nuclear disasters are so far beyond every mine accident that it's not even worth mentioning. All this is a growing problem since we're faced with old nuclear reactors that are being kept alive for the sake of revenues. It's a huge issue for Germany for example being faced with old nuclear power plants leaking and breaking all the time just behind the border. This will happen more often and the poorer the country owning one is, the greater is the risk. We again didn't even touch the WASTE as you seem to avoid it at all costs. And as I've said several times over: I don't want to replace it nuclear with coal. Please stop dragging your straw man into this over and over. We are in the 21st century and there are alternatives.