4 ms·

You shouldn't just count deaths and conclude that a nuclear catastrophy isn't that bad. Far more people had to evacuate their home, having to leave most of thei

by est31 8y ago

You shouldn't just count deaths and conclude that a nuclear catastrophy isn't that bad. Far more people had to evacuate their home, having to leave most of their belongings behind. And most times with no or too little compensation. Sure, nuclear is prefferable to coal but that doesn't mean that both shouldn't be gotten rid of.

TomMarius 8y ago
But that kind of reactor is never going to be built again - its design was very outdated and outright bad. Today we can build reactors where any failure that would result in an explosion of any kind is physically nearly impossible.
- ianai 8y ago
  Bingo, there’s clearly plenty of progress to be made with nuclear power and plenty made already.
- est31 8y ago
  Maybe we won't build those reactor types any more. But they are still operational, and this is what matters. There is a huge incentive in keeping them operational as the major cost of nuclear energy is building the reactor. Already built reactors don't incur that cost any more so they make loads of money for their operators, especially when they are old and "mortage free". Due to this gigantic incentive, every political support of new nuclear plants will be misdirected into prolonging the operational life of existing highly dangerous reactors. As to your "physically near impossible": people said about the titanic that it was unsinkable. This only led to a major shortage of lifeboats once it sank because why would a unsinkable ship need so many lifeboats.
  - lstodd 8y ago
    There are 11 still in operation, and heavily modified to not allow anything like that thirty-year old disaster. If this bullshit cloud over nuclear got dissolved they'd be replaced with much more safe design. Instead they are forced to continue operation because nothing new can be built. Because of unfounded fears. That's what caused the Fukushima disaster. No new plants - no decommisioning of old plants - old plants blow up.
    - est31 8y ago
      > If this bullshit cloud over nuclear got dissolved they'd be replaced with much more safe design. I've outlined above why this doesn't happen. Japan has been severely pro-nuclear in the 80s and 90s, and built tons of reactors, yet they only decommisioned a single old reactor in the 80s and 90s, according to this list [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Japan
      - lstodd 8y ago
        > I've outlined above No, you didn't. If anything, you supported my line of reasoning - if the insane push against nuclear didn't happen, then the plants would have been modernised or rebuilt and there would not have been a Fukushima.
        ianai 8y ago
        I wonder whether the tsunami would have been so bad if not for the effects of climate change on sea levels. A literally physical attack on nuclear from fossil fuels.
- Tomte 8y ago
  That exact same argument was made back then. You need to accept that all trust is lost. You cannot take backsies every few decades and expect people to trust you that this time you really know what you#re talking about.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    Do you have a source for that? Because I seriously doubt that anyone made that argument for Chernobyl's reactor design.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    > That exact same argument was made back then. No, it wasn't. Please back it up if you have any proof, but this is not true IMO.
yongjik 8y ago
I couldn't find a definite number, but the total number of people who evacuated are somewhere around 100-200k. (Every source has different numbers because the zone kept changing, I guess.) Meanwhile, coal emission kills ~1M every year, or ~100k every month. (I guess the numbers are just an order-of-magnitude estimate, so take them with a grain of salt.) So, during the month of Fukushima disaster (the second worst nuclear power disaster in history) it displaced a few times more people than coal killed in that month.
- davrosthedalek 8y ago
  Also, coal mining, especially surface mining, displaces people too.
- ljf 8y ago
  Thankfully we are using far less coal now in the UK and plan to carry on using less. Yes coal is terrible and the sooner the world stopa using it the better, but the answer isn't 'if we can't have nuclear then we can only have coal' is a lie. https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
DennisP 8y ago
Should we also get rid of hydro? Because the worst power plant accident in history was Banqiao Dam, which killed 26,000 people by drowning and another 150,000 in the aftermath. The entire area was devastated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam There have been a fair number of other serious hydro accidents as well. In the U.S., Teton Dam wiped out two towns, and Oroville Dam just recently prompted the evacuation of 180,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...
BurningFrog 8y ago
Do you understand that without any energy production the vast majority of humanity also dies? Electricity isn't some luxury we can get rid of if there are a few thousand deaths here and there associated with the production.

by est31 8y ago

TomMarius 8y ago

But that kind of reactor is never going to be built again - its design was very outdated and outright bad. Today we can build reactors where any failure that would result in an explosion of any kind is physically nearly impossible.

ianai 8y ago
Bingo, there’s clearly plenty of progress to be made with nuclear power and plenty made already.
est31 8y ago
Maybe we won't build those reactor types any more. But they are still operational, and this is what matters. There is a huge incentive in keeping them operational as the major cost of nuclear energy is building the reactor. Already built reactors don't incur that cost any more so they make loads of money for their operators, especially when they are old and "mortage free". Due to this gigantic incentive, every political support of new nuclear plants will be misdirected into prolonging the operational life of existing highly dangerous reactors. As to your "physically near impossible": people said about the titanic that it was unsinkable. This only led to a major shortage of lifeboats once it sank because why would a unsinkable ship need so many lifeboats.
- lstodd 8y ago
  There are 11 still in operation, and heavily modified to not allow anything like that thirty-year old disaster. If this bullshit cloud over nuclear got dissolved they'd be replaced with much more safe design. Instead they are forced to continue operation because nothing new can be built. Because of unfounded fears. That's what caused the Fukushima disaster. No new plants - no decommisioning of old plants - old plants blow up.
  - est31 8y ago
    > If this bullshit cloud over nuclear got dissolved they'd be replaced with much more safe design. I've outlined above why this doesn't happen. Japan has been severely pro-nuclear in the 80s and 90s, and built tons of reactors, yet they only decommisioned a single old reactor in the 80s and 90s, according to this list [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Japan
    - lstodd 8y ago
      > I've outlined above No, you didn't. If anything, you supported my line of reasoning - if the insane push against nuclear didn't happen, then the plants would have been modernised or rebuilt and there would not have been a Fukushima.
      - ianai 8y ago
        I wonder whether the tsunami would have been so bad if not for the effects of climate change on sea levels. A literally physical attack on nuclear from fossil fuels.
Tomte 8y ago
That exact same argument was made back then. You need to accept that all trust is lost. You cannot take backsies every few decades and expect people to trust you that this time you really know what you#re talking about.
- DennisP 8y ago
  Do you have a source for that? Because I seriously doubt that anyone made that argument for Chernobyl's reactor design.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  > That exact same argument was made back then. No, it wasn't. Please back it up if you have any proof, but this is not true IMO.

yongjik 8y ago

I couldn't find a definite number, but the total number of people who evacuated are somewhere around 100-200k. (Every source has different numbers because the zone kept changing, I guess.) Meanwhile, coal emission kills ~1M every year, or ~100k every month. (I guess the numbers are just an order-of-magnitude estimate, so take them with a grain of salt.) So, during the month of Fukushima disaster (the second worst nuclear power disaster in history) it displaced a few times more people than coal killed in that month.

davrosthedalek 8y ago
Also, coal mining, especially surface mining, displaces people too.
ljf 8y ago
Thankfully we are using far less coal now in the UK and plan to carry on using less. Yes coal is terrible and the sooner the world stopa using it the better, but the answer isn't 'if we can't have nuclear then we can only have coal' is a lie. https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

DennisP 8y ago

Should we also get rid of hydro? Because the worst power plant accident in history was Banqiao Dam, which killed 26,000 people by drowning and another 150,000 in the aftermath. The entire area was devastated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam There have been a fair number of other serious hydro accidents as well. In the U.S., Teton Dam wiped out two towns, and Oroville Dam just recently prompted the evacuation of 180,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...

BurningFrog 8y ago

Do you understand that without any energy production the vast majority of humanity also dies? Electricity isn't some luxury we can get rid of if there are a few thousand deaths here and there associated with the production.