6 ms·

The risks are real (as we have seen) and I think they should be insured accordingly.

by dukoid 8y ago

smsm42 8y ago
The risks are real, but vastly overestimated, especially compared to (also real) risks of coal.
justinpombrio 8y ago
Real, but much lower than coal. Coal causes on the order of 1000 times more deaths per kilowatt of power produced than nuclear power. This is counting nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even if our nuclear track record were much worse, nuclear power would still be safer than coal. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#6002fab7709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
- bsaul 8y ago
  i think the major risk for nuclear energy isn't about human death but rather economical consequences of having an entire region destroyed for 40 thousands years.
  - justinpombrio 8y ago
    This surprised me too, but apparently it's not as bad as that. Containment and cleanup is dangerous and expensive, but not impossible. Chernobyl is maybe starting to be re-inhabited? http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Most_Chernobyl_towns_fit_for_habitation_2504121.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Most_Chernobyl_towns_fi... Here's ground zero at Hiroshima. Open 24/7, in the middle of the city. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Atomic+Bomb+Hypocenter/@34.3947198,132.4525241,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x355aa20cfb72be19:0x2fa8b78b04761f58!8m2!3d34.3947198!4d132.4547128?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Atomic+Bomb+Hypo... EDIT: And see the nearby Peace Memorial Park. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Peace+Memorial+Park/@34.3929314,132.4531678,17z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x355aa20cfb72be19:0x2fa8b78b04761f58!2sHiroshima+Atomic+Bomb+Hypocenter!8m2!3d34.3947198!4d132.4547128!3m4!1s0x355aa26d54333083:0xe129ced5b9751665!8m2!3d34.3928673!4d132.4525311?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Peace+Memorial+P...
    - inawarminister 8y ago
      Yep, I've been to Hiroshima myself and there was no concern about radiation at all... It's been washed away after 73 years Of course, it's because both Hiroshima and Nagasaki got bit by first generation atomic bomb, and are right next to the sea. A salted nuclear explosion in a deep desert or inside a cave might make a seemingly-forever radioactive fallout. But that's not a concern in nuclear power I'd say.
mjevans 8y ago
The risks also have Engineering and Process controls that //modern// designs use. The non-energy products from nuclear reactors are also extremely useful in medicine and other science fields. Additionally a lot of the current "waste" from older reactors is exactly that, wasted energy that different designs can do a better job of using up and converting to more precisely filtered waste streams (separating out the stuff not useful from reactors, but still quite hot, from the stuff that'll decay so slowly it can be handled differently). Though I do agree that the cost of cleanup (and also insurance against disasters / errors-omissions) should be assumed to be something paid for and collected as taxes.

The risks are real (as we have seen) and I think they should be insured accordingly.

by dukoid 8y ago

The risks are real (as we have seen) and I think they should be insured accordingly.

smsm42 8y ago

The risks are real, but vastly overestimated, especially compared to (also real) risks of coal.

justinpombrio 8y ago

Real, but much lower than coal. Coal causes on the order of 1000 times more deaths per kilowatt of power produced than nuclear power. This is counting nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even if our nuclear track record were much worse, nuclear power would still be safer than coal. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#6002fab7709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

bsaul 8y ago
i think the major risk for nuclear energy isn't about human death but rather economical consequences of having an entire region destroyed for 40 thousands years.
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  This surprised me too, but apparently it's not as bad as that. Containment and cleanup is dangerous and expensive, but not impossible. Chernobyl is maybe starting to be re-inhabited? http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Most_Chernobyl_towns_fit_for_habitation_2504121.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Most_Chernobyl_towns_fi... Here's ground zero at Hiroshima. Open 24/7, in the middle of the city. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Atomic+Bomb+Hypocenter/@34.3947198,132.4525241,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x355aa20cfb72be19:0x2fa8b78b04761f58!8m2!3d34.3947198!4d132.4547128?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Atomic+Bomb+Hypo... EDIT: And see the nearby Peace Memorial Park. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Peace+Memorial+Park/@34.3929314,132.4531678,17z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x355aa20cfb72be19:0x2fa8b78b04761f58!2sHiroshima+Atomic+Bomb+Hypocenter!8m2!3d34.3947198!4d132.4547128!3m4!1s0x355aa26d54333083:0xe129ced5b9751665!8m2!3d34.3928673!4d132.4525311?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hiroshima+Peace+Memorial+P...
  - inawarminister 8y ago
    Yep, I've been to Hiroshima myself and there was no concern about radiation at all... It's been washed away after 73 years Of course, it's because both Hiroshima and Nagasaki got bit by first generation atomic bomb, and are right next to the sea. A salted nuclear explosion in a deep desert or inside a cave might make a seemingly-forever radioactive fallout. But that's not a concern in nuclear power I'd say.

mjevans 8y ago

The risks also have Engineering and Process controls that //modern// designs use. The non-energy products from nuclear reactors are also extremely useful in medicine and other science fields. Additionally a lot of the current "waste" from older reactors is exactly that, wasted energy that different designs can do a better job of using up and converting to more precisely filtered waste streams (separating out the stuff not useful from reactors, but still quite hot, from the stuff that'll decay so slowly it can be handled differently). Though I do agree that the cost of cleanup (and also insurance against disasters / errors-omissions) should be assumed to be something paid for and collected as taxes.