4 ms·

How many Fukushimas will we (society) accept every 150 years in order to stop climate change? That's really the only question that matters.

c1sc0 8y ago
Both Fukushima & Chernobyl would have been essentially non-issues if built further away from population centers. I know this is Sim City logic: but my answer to that would be: quite a lot!
- toyg 8y ago
  Where do you suggest people staffing the site should live? Chernobyl was basically a factory town around the plant.
- anoncake 8y ago
  The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone covers 2,600km². It's irregularly shaped so it's unlikely you can predict which area will actually be irradiated, so a nuclear power plant in fact endangers an even larger area. Good luck finding a place in Europe, let alone Japan, that is far enough from population centers. Also consider that NPPs need cooling water so they are often located near rivers. As are population centers.
ovi256 8y ago
An infinity of them, as there are very few deaths attributable to Fukushima, whereas the coal generation plants spew pollution and radionuclides into the atmosphere which result in definitely attributable deaths.
- rocqua 8y ago
  Attribution is a hard thing. Moreover, displacing a population and making land unlivable are bad things in and off themselves, even if people don't die.
- Tepix 8y ago
  I hope noone believes the official number of deaths from nuclear power plant accidents.
  - dagw 8y ago
    So multiply them 5. The argument vs coal still holds.
    - Krasnol 8y ago
      How about multiplying it by thousands? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7151231_Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_in_Europe_from_radioactive_fallout_from_the_Chernobyl_accident https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7151231_Estimates_o... https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/4/chernobylhealthreport.pdf https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/Global/inte...
      - ovi256 8y ago
        First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ? Anyway, about the first link: Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes ... unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected" Try to compare with the number attributable to coal pollution now ? Second link: Greenpeace, overtly being against nuclear power, will bring the biggest estimates of impact right ? Anyway, what they find is 200k additional deaths in Russia and Ukraine between 1990 and 2004 (first para page 9). But around 34M deaths were recorded in those territories in that time. By Greenpeace's own admission, 0.59% of those are attributable to Chernobyl. Again, try to compare to coal pollution.
        Krasnol 8y ago
        > First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ? How can I? Who would provide that? Especially in Japan where politics and ignorance go hand in hand with avoidance to even talk about the whole thing or any disastrous event. The piles of white bags full of earth next to the roads in the region are the only silent reminders that something really bad happened there. > Anyway, about the first link: Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes I don't understand what you want to say by that. Do you mean it's okay to ignore the fallout of this disaster because people die of cancer either way? I mean seriously. There are radioactively contaminated wild animals running around in Bavaria's forests today and the accident happened almost 2000km away. Can you imagine how Europe would look like if one of those old and leaking reactors in France goes sideways? There is nothing to compare to besides a nuclear war. I can understand it's a nice thing with this radioactive accidents. There is usually a small amount of people who die in a spectacular and direct way while the rest dies a silent deaths over a long period of time. It's very handy if you want to push a technology which is too expensive and outdated and the only other argument out there is the death count of accidents. But this is not the case. Renewables are coming while even gas is a better solution then building even one nuclear reactor and most of the people, Governments and energy providers got the message already. The people never wanted a nuclear waste dump or reactor in the neighborhood in the first place. The only people left are those directly profiting from the immense subsidies (nuclear lobby) and those who fell for the recent artificial hype created by this lobby. It's time to face the facts: it's dead Jim.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
This attitude is what's keeping these old and less safe reactor designs running in the first place.
- jabl 8y ago
  All things considered, particularly climate change, probably better to keep those old designs running rather than replacing them with fossil or bio fuels. Once you have a 100% fossil/bio-free grid, you can replace those pesky nuclear plants with hamster wheel power for all I care.

c1sc0 8y ago

Both Fukushima & Chernobyl would have been essentially non-issues if built further away from population centers. I know this is Sim City logic: but my answer to that would be: quite a lot!

toyg 8y ago
Where do you suggest people staffing the site should live? Chernobyl was basically a factory town around the plant.
anoncake 8y ago
The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone covers 2,600km². It's irregularly shaped so it's unlikely you can predict which area will actually be irradiated, so a nuclear power plant in fact endangers an even larger area. Good luck finding a place in Europe, let alone Japan, that is far enough from population centers. Also consider that NPPs need cooling water so they are often located near rivers. As are population centers.

ovi256 8y ago

An infinity of them, as there are very few deaths attributable to Fukushima, whereas the coal generation plants spew pollution and radionuclides into the atmosphere which result in definitely attributable deaths.

rocqua 8y ago
Attribution is a hard thing. Moreover, displacing a population and making land unlivable are bad things in and off themselves, even if people don't die.
Tepix 8y ago
I hope noone believes the official number of deaths from nuclear power plant accidents.
- dagw 8y ago
  So multiply them 5. The argument vs coal still holds.
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    How about multiplying it by thousands? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7151231_Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_in_Europe_from_radioactive_fallout_from_the_Chernobyl_accident https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7151231_Estimates_o... https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/4/chernobylhealthreport.pdf https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/Global/inte...
    - ovi256 8y ago
      First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ? Anyway, about the first link: Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes ... unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected" Try to compare with the number attributable to coal pollution now ? Second link: Greenpeace, overtly being against nuclear power, will bring the biggest estimates of impact right ? Anyway, what they find is 200k additional deaths in Russia and Ukraine between 1990 and 2004 (first para page 9). But around 34M deaths were recorded in those territories in that time. By Greenpeace's own admission, 0.59% of those are attributable to Chernobyl. Again, try to compare to coal pollution.
      - Krasnol 8y ago
        > First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ? How can I? Who would provide that? Especially in Japan where politics and ignorance go hand in hand with avoidance to even talk about the whole thing or any disastrous event. The piles of white bags full of earth next to the roads in the region are the only silent reminders that something really bad happened there. > Anyway, about the first link: Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes I don't understand what you want to say by that. Do you mean it's okay to ignore the fallout of this disaster because people die of cancer either way? I mean seriously. There are radioactively contaminated wild animals running around in Bavaria's forests today and the accident happened almost 2000km away. Can you imagine how Europe would look like if one of those old and leaking reactors in France goes sideways? There is nothing to compare to besides a nuclear war. I can understand it's a nice thing with this radioactive accidents. There is usually a small amount of people who die in a spectacular and direct way while the rest dies a silent deaths over a long period of time. It's very handy if you want to push a technology which is too expensive and outdated and the only other argument out there is the death count of accidents. But this is not the case. Renewables are coming while even gas is a better solution then building even one nuclear reactor and most of the people, Governments and energy providers got the message already. The people never wanted a nuclear waste dump or reactor in the neighborhood in the first place. The only people left are those directly profiting from the immense subsidies (nuclear lobby) and those who fell for the recent artificial hype created by this lobby. It's time to face the facts: it's dead Jim.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

This attitude is what's keeping these old and less safe reactor designs running in the first place.

jabl 8y ago
All things considered, particularly climate change, probably better to keep those old designs running rather than replacing them with fossil or bio fuels. Once you have a 100% fossil/bio-free grid, you can replace those pesky nuclear plants with hamster wheel power for all I care.