4 ms·
Ugh - more retreating from nuclear caused by ignorant fear mongering :(
by EricE 8y ago
Ugh - more retreating from nuclear caused by ignorant fear mongering :(
- progfix 8y agoWhy would someone prefer a nuclear plant over a hydro plant?
- thaumasiotes 8y agoMost obviously, because they aren't near a river. Second most obviously, because they want more power than the river can generate. Third most obviously, because they want to leave some energy in the river.
- pimmen 8y agoFourth, hydropower has claimed for more lives than nuclear power from direct accidents (remember that Fukushima has killed 0) [1]. [1] https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-...
- pjc50 8y agoNuclear plants need a large supply of cooling water, so they are almost all near rivers, seas or lakes.
- prepend 8y agoDifferent river characteristics than what is required for hydro plants.
- piquadrat 8y agoHydro plants (specifically, dams) can be very disruptive to the local environment. You're flooding entire valleys. They can also pose a substantial danger in the case of failure, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam (~2000 casualties, vs Fukushima Daiichi's estimated death toll of ~500). (I'm a big fan of hydro power, just saying it also has its draw backs)
- adminu 8y agoWell, in this case the flooded area was under water before as well... just frozen water. So I assume the environmental impact would be small, here. Also I would assume, the higher up the mountain the dam is build the smaller the impact due to less flora and fauna.
- freshfey 8y agoI'd argue though that the 500 in Fukushima's case don't include the ripple effect of dying fish, hurting the environment and making products more radioactive, which then get shipped all over and cause cancer in people (I'm exaggerating but you get the gist).
- MagnumOpus 8y agoJust like the estimates for building dams don't include the ripple effect of dying fish, dying fisheries, and the health impact on fishers. (Or the relocation of people to create dam lakes, leading to stress-related deaths just like Fukushima relocations might have...) My point: Once you go into small and hard-to-quantify large-population effects, your error margins become ridiculous and you can pull out any conclusion out of your hat...
- Udik 8y agoWhile the death toll of nuclear accidents is relatively low, their economic cost seems to be staggering. The Japanese authorities enforced a 30km exclusion zone around Fukushima; if an accident of similar size had happened to the Beznau nuclear plant, the entire city of Zürich could have fallen inside the exclusion zone. Just think of the real estate value vaporized. Even if it's one event in a thousand years, I'm not sure it's worth the risk.
- piquadrat 8y agoFun fact, there were serious plans in the 1950ies to build a nuclear power plant right in Zurich, primarily as district heating for ETH Zurich. https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/88080/eth-30387-01.pdf https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.... (page 83, German)
- tonyedgecombe 8y agoBecause we haven't really solved the waste problem.
- newsgremlin 8y agoWhy is it wrong to fear nuclear? It's damage can obviously be catastrophic, it's not banned, it's avoided. It's like air travel, while one or several journeys can go without incident, the few instances that do happen are costly. Mistakes with nuclear don't go unpunished.
- richjdsmith 8y agoI don't know if air travel is the best example - more and more people travel by air, and sure, there is the risk of death, but per mile traveled, it is by far the safest means of transport.
- delroth 8y agoQuite the opposite, it's a perfect example. Nuclear is also the safest means of energy production if you account for deaths caused by pollution, mining, and other indirect factors. And similar to air travel, people think it's unsafe because of constant fear mongering and focus on incidents that are statistically insignificant. There were more people who died at Fukushima because of the evacuation procedures than the expected long term death toll from radiation exposure (and, notably, there were 0 deaths directly caused by the incident).
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoWe're hardwired to only believe in what we can immediately mentally visualize - a plane crash is so much more dramatic than a car crash, and the images of Fukushima stick with people when compared to the completely absent ability to mentally picture what a coal plant's damage looks like.
- newsgremlin 8y agoBut the worst that can happen is a few planes out of hundreds fail every year. If nuclear was much more widespread as the primary source of energy would having atleast nuclear meltdown every few years make you feel safe? That is ofcourse if you are within the blast and radioactive zone.