4 ms·

> nuclear fission could be safer per kWh than wind and solar. Sounds completely improbable. Care to provide some reference to back that statement up?

shawnz 8y ago
Some examples of research that has reached this conclusion: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... It might sound improbable if you are comparing from a purely technological point of view. But the reality is that the energy output of nuclear is so much higher than other technologies, it easily makes up for any increase in risk by requiring much fewer plants. That's what makes nuclear so attractive in the first place.
- stareatgoats 8y ago
  You fail to mention that Herbert Inhaber's article was published in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Bulletin in 1979 [1] (before Three Man Island), drawing from his study published the same year which was heavily criticized even at the time [2] and does not take the problem of nuclear waste into account at all, and otherwise dis-ingeniously cherry-picked number of deaths associated with each energy source up to that point. The second article you quote is just a blog, and the conclusions are just as dubious, for example trying to weigh falls during roof construction into the risks of solar etc. edit: removed confusing statement about fission/fusion [1] https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 [2] "Perhaps the most damaging criticism was that the study was inconsistent in applying the methodology to the various energy technologies. For example, while Inhaber considered materials acquisition, component fabrication, and plant construction in his analysis of unconventional energy sources and for hydro power, critics have claimed that he did not follow the same approach for coal, nuclear power, oil, and gas. Furthermore, critics claimed that the labor figures for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power included only on-site construction, while those for the renewable energy sources included on-site construction, materials acquisition, component manufacture." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006, page 31.

shawnz 8y ago

Some examples of research that has reached this conclusion: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... It might sound improbable if you are comparing from a purely technological point of view. But the reality is that the energy output of nuclear is so much higher than other technologies, it easily makes up for any increase in risk by requiring much fewer plants. That's what makes nuclear so attractive in the first place.

stareatgoats 8y ago
You fail to mention that Herbert Inhaber's article was published in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Bulletin in 1979 [1] (before Three Man Island), drawing from his study published the same year which was heavily criticized even at the time [2] and does not take the problem of nuclear waste into account at all, and otherwise dis-ingeniously cherry-picked number of deaths associated with each energy source up to that point. The second article you quote is just a blog, and the conclusions are just as dubious, for example trying to weigh falls during roof construction into the risks of solar etc. edit: removed confusing statement about fission/fusion [1] https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1 [2] "Perhaps the most damaging criticism was that the study was inconsistent in applying the methodology to the various energy technologies. For example, while Inhaber considered materials acquisition, component fabrication, and plant construction in his analysis of unconventional energy sources and for hydro power, critics have claimed that he did not follow the same approach for coal, nuclear power, oil, and gas. Furthermore, critics claimed that the labor figures for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power included only on-site construction, while those for the renewable energy sources included on-site construction, materials acquisition, component manufacture." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267817006, page 31.