5 ms·

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear

by ajuc 8y ago

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal powerplants, it's their normal operation as designed. Nuclear powerplants is the easiest way to replace baseload, and by insisting on not using it we increase the amount of radioactive elements in air, the deaths, and the CO2 emissions (because you can't replace most baseload with solar/wind - so if not nuclear it's coal/gas).

ameowba 8y ago
>As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?
- nitrogen 8y ago
  Search past HN posts or look it up on Wikipedia, it's been discussed many times.
- teawrecks 8y ago
  Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    Bad analogy, it would be somewhat valid if I compared the TOTAL number of deaths between activities done by vastly different amount of people. But I compared PER MWh PRODUCED, so it's nothing like with vending machines vs sharks. > if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh. If 100% of our MWh came from nuclear, and nuclear has less deaths per MWh - then some deaths would be avoided that now aren't. How is that not important? Honestly, your analogy was so bad it seems like intentional manipulation.
iamphilrae 8y ago
Here’s a source from Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... And a quote: “Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.”
- strainer 8y ago
  That's just comparing them with coal to sound great. The three major nuclear accidents do not represent the worst which nuclear plants are capable of. For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD its a real vulnerably of the technology and is a reason why they incur constant exceptional security as well as safety costs. They consume alot of water resource as well, for cooling. Thankfully its an academic debate now anyway, because solar and wind prices are already much cheaper with no end to their continued improvement in sight.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    Normal operation of coal powerplants is more dangerous than the worst accidents we had with nuclear powerplants. Modern nuclear powerplants are much safer than these that had accidents. Yes you have to include the possibility of new accidents - being sabotaged or not. But that possibility needs to be weighed with the probability of it. And it's very low. Meanwhile we completely ignore the 100% sure deaths and radiation caused by coal powerplants. Because we're used to it. BTW sabotaging hydro powerplants can kill hundreds of thousands of people at once. And it's much easier than sabotaging a nuclear powerplant. Get one diver with a swimsuit and give him some TNT. Somehow I haven't seen this used as a counterargument to renewable energy :)
    - 8y ago

by ajuc 8y ago

ameowba 8y ago

>As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?

nitrogen 8y ago
Search past HN posts or look it up on Wikipedia, it's been discussed many times.
teawrecks 8y ago
Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.
- ajuc 8y ago
  Bad analogy, it would be somewhat valid if I compared the TOTAL number of deaths between activities done by vastly different amount of people. But I compared PER MWh PRODUCED, so it's nothing like with vending machines vs sharks. > if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh. If 100% of our MWh came from nuclear, and nuclear has less deaths per MWh - then some deaths would be avoided that now aren't. How is that not important? Honestly, your analogy was so bad it seems like intentional manipulation.

iamphilrae 8y ago

Here’s a source from Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... And a quote: “Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.”

strainer 8y ago
That's just comparing them with coal to sound great. The three major nuclear accidents do not represent the worst which nuclear plants are capable of. For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD its a real vulnerably of the technology and is a reason why they incur constant exceptional security as well as safety costs. They consume alot of water resource as well, for cooling. Thankfully its an academic debate now anyway, because solar and wind prices are already much cheaper with no end to their continued improvement in sight.
- ajuc 8y ago
  Normal operation of coal powerplants is more dangerous than the worst accidents we had with nuclear powerplants. Modern nuclear powerplants are much safer than these that had accidents. Yes you have to include the possibility of new accidents - being sabotaged or not. But that possibility needs to be weighed with the probability of it. And it's very low. Meanwhile we completely ignore the 100% sure deaths and radiation caused by coal powerplants. Because we're used to it. BTW sabotaging hydro powerplants can kill hundreds of thousands of people at once. And it's much easier than sabotaging a nuclear powerplant. Get one diver with a swimsuit and give him some TNT. Somehow I haven't seen this used as a counterargument to renewable energy :)
  - 8y ago