4 ms·

The real problem with nuclear is that when it fails, it fails hard and damages the environment for decades if not more. Wind and solar have the smallest impact

The real problem with nuclear is that when it fails, it fails hard and damages the environment for decades if not more. Wind and solar have the smallest impact even when they fail as far as I am aware. It is about more than just CO2 reduction.

merpnderp 8y ago
Depends on what you value more. Nuclear causes fewer deaths by a magnitude than solar and wind. And what is worse, dead birds from turbines and land covered in panels so that vegetation can't grow and support the native wildlife, or some giant stable old salt mine filled with nuclear waste and closed off from the world?
- rpedela 8y ago
  > Nuclear causes fewer deaths by a magnitude than solar and wind Source?
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/deaths-nuclear-energy-com... and https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
- 7952 8y ago
  That assumes the land was available for wildlife before the site was constructed. In the UK our solar sites are on farmland, and provide a far superior habitat to intense agriculture. Wildflowers can grow under the solar panels which is fantastic for bees and butterflys. Also, it is common to do surveys to model the risk to birds and avoid important populations and migrating species. Also, deaths during construction tend to be workers who have signed up to the risk. That isn't OK, but it is a lot less bad than risk to random members of the public who have not consented. And it is a vast improvement on the deaths caused by fossil fuels.
perilunar 8y ago
> and damages the environment for decades if not more Though apparently radiation is not as bad for the flora and fauna as people are: “Wildlife is thriving around Chernobyl since the people left” https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28281-wildlife-is-thriving-around-chernobyl-since-the-people-left/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28281-wildlife-is-thr...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Sabinus 8y ago
  Animals and plants don't care as much about higher infant mortality, cancers or lower lifespans as humans do. Plus the cumulative effects of radiation are less deadly than human predation and habitat destruction.

merpnderp 8y ago

Depends on what you value more. Nuclear causes fewer deaths by a magnitude than solar and wind. And what is worse, dead birds from turbines and land covered in panels so that vegetation can't grow and support the native wildlife, or some giant stable old salt mine filled with nuclear waste and closed off from the world?

rpedela 8y ago
> Nuclear causes fewer deaths by a magnitude than solar and wind Source?
- ekianjo 8y ago
  https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/deaths-nuclear-energy-com... and https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
7952 8y ago
That assumes the land was available for wildlife before the site was constructed. In the UK our solar sites are on farmland, and provide a far superior habitat to intense agriculture. Wildflowers can grow under the solar panels which is fantastic for bees and butterflys. Also, it is common to do surveys to model the risk to birds and avoid important populations and migrating species. Also, deaths during construction tend to be workers who have signed up to the risk. That isn't OK, but it is a lot less bad than risk to random members of the public who have not consented. And it is a vast improvement on the deaths caused by fossil fuels.

perilunar 8y ago

> and damages the environment for decades if not more Though apparently radiation is not as bad for the flora and fauna as people are: “Wildlife is thriving around Chernobyl since the people left” https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28281-wildlife-is-thriving-around-chernobyl-since-the-people-left/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28281-wildlife-is-thr...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Sabinus 8y ago
Animals and plants don't care as much about higher infant mortality, cancers or lower lifespans as humans do. Plus the cumulative effects of radiation are less deadly than human predation and habitat destruction.