3 ms·

> ... deaths per TWh ... The thing is we have not yet seen "worst case scenario" for a nuclear power accident. As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH wo

> ... deaths per TWh ... The thing is we have not yet seen "worst case scenario" for a nuclear power accident. As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. We don't know what the actual death/TWh is for nuclear is yet because there hasn't been "enough" TWh's.

ziddoap 7y ago
That logic can extend to literally any scenario with data. There is never "enough data", especially regarding edge cases or "worst case scenarios". Luckily, we can use the data we have and come up with some intermediate conclusions while more data is collected - rather than sweep it under the rug.
yongjik 7y ago
For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the worst case scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...) It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  I'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate. The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.
angersock 7y ago
> As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. [citation needed]
opo 7y ago
>..As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. Chernobyl would have been illegal to build anywhere else in the world since it was such an inherently dangerous design. It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else. At any rate, when you say "As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible." - you need to back that up with something. We've had hundreds of reactors producing hundreds of TWh of electricity per year for decades with less loss of life than any other power source.
- intertextuality 7y ago
  > It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl (and other reactors like it) should've, could've, would've done x,y,z, but that disaster did occur, that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected. Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. "net less of life" isn't really a good statistic because living things are also affected.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    >Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe" in vain. I don't think they are claiming it is inherently safe. My 2c on it is that yes, it is important to recognize the failures and lessons learned when moving forward. However, we don't bring up the Model T when discussing road safety today. This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. So, yes we need to think about Chernobyl. No, it isn't fair to directly compare Chernobyl to Gen IV plants.
    - v_lisivka 7y ago
      Modern car is much safer than Model T, but it also is much faster, and number of cars is so huge, so number of deaths due to incidents rose to 1.25M per year + 20-50M injured or disabled. Yep, modern reactor is much safer than Chornobyl, but we have much more reactors now, so if we have 100x safer reactor but 400x more reactors, net safety is decreased by 4x.

ziddoap 7y ago

That logic can extend to literally any scenario with data. There is never "enough data", especially regarding edge cases or "worst case scenarios". Luckily, we can use the data we have and come up with some intermediate conclusions while more data is collected - rather than sweep it under the rug.

yongjik 7y ago

For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the worst case scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...) It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."

crispyambulance 7y ago
I'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate. The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.

angersock 7y ago

> As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. [citation needed]

opo 7y ago

>..As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. Chernobyl would have been illegal to build anywhere else in the world since it was such an inherently dangerous design. It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else. At any rate, when you say "As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible." - you need to back that up with something. We've had hundreds of reactors producing hundreds of TWh of electricity per year for decades with less loss of life than any other power source.

intertextuality 7y ago
> It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl (and other reactors like it) should've, could've, would've done x,y,z, but that disaster did occur, that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected. Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. "net less of life" isn't really a good statistic because living things are also affected.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ziddoap 7y ago
  >Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe" in vain. I don't think they are claiming it is inherently safe. My 2c on it is that yes, it is important to recognize the failures and lessons learned when moving forward. However, we don't bring up the Model T when discussing road safety today. This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. So, yes we need to think about Chernobyl. No, it isn't fair to directly compare Chernobyl to Gen IV plants.
  - v_lisivka 7y ago
    Modern car is much safer than Model T, but it also is much faster, and number of cars is so huge, so number of deaths due to incidents rose to 1.25M per year + 20-50M injured or disabled. Yep, modern reactor is much safer than Chornobyl, but we have much more reactors now, so if we have 100x safer reactor but 400x more reactors, net safety is decreased by 4x.