4 ms·

I actually grew up in Chernobyl and my parents still work on CNPP, so I did my share of research on this topic. Given its track record Nuclear is the safest so

by option 7y ago

I actually grew up in Chernobyl and my parents still work on CNPP, so I did my share of research on this topic. Given its track record Nuclear is the safest source of energy (measured in deaths/twh), safer than even solar or wind. Disposal is not nearly as big of a problem as people paint it is, especially for newer reactor.

newsoul2019 7y ago
I am curious now about deaths from solar and wind...
- function_seven 7y ago
  I believe this comes from the construction and maintenance related deaths (i.e. falling off a roof when installing solar panels). I don't know if it's accurate or not, though.
  - clarry 7y ago
    If so, it doesn't sound like a particularly fair comparison to me. Nuclear facilities shouldn't be compared to Joe Randoms installing panels on their summer cottages, they should be compared to (at least) megawatt scale industrial installations, where the occupational hazards in construction probably aren't any worse than in a nuclear power plant. (The panels are at ground level on solar farms..)
    - function_seven 7y ago
      I agree. Also, Joe Random is taking on the task willingly. He has the ability to do it as safely or as dangerously as he wishes. Whereas Jane Bystander (who developed cancer from a nearby radiation indecent) wasn't engaging in any particular activity that caused her death.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Causality1 7y ago
Human beings have an aversion to the fundamental truth of decision-making, which is "shut up and multiply".
falcrist 7y ago
I'm not making an argument that nuclear isn't safe. However, it is inherently high-stakes. A mistake that causes a station blackout for a couple hours can cost thousands of lives and make large swathes of land uninhabitable, costing billions of dollars. What you say about it being the safest in terms of deaths per unit energy is the argument I use to counteract the concern, but I still admit that the concern is legitimate. It's a hell of a way to boil water (Karl Grossman).
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  > A mistake that causes a station blackout for a couple hours can cost thousands of lives A mistake that causes a hydro dam burst can cost thousands of lives. A coal power plant operating as designed does cost thousands of lives due to direct pollution and eventually thousands more through climate-change-induced famines. A solar farm of a size that can replace a 3GW nuke plant as baseload doesn't exist yet, would have to have 10-15 GWpeak capacity, would need a 10-15 GWh battery just to cover overnight load-balancing, which is a substantial chunk of global factory capacity for batteries...

by option 7y ago

newsoul2019 7y ago

I am curious now about deaths from solar and wind...

function_seven 7y ago
I believe this comes from the construction and maintenance related deaths (i.e. falling off a roof when installing solar panels). I don't know if it's accurate or not, though.
- clarry 7y ago
  If so, it doesn't sound like a particularly fair comparison to me. Nuclear facilities shouldn't be compared to Joe Randoms installing panels on their summer cottages, they should be compared to (at least) megawatt scale industrial installations, where the occupational hazards in construction probably aren't any worse than in a nuclear power plant. (The panels are at ground level on solar farms..)
  - function_seven 7y ago
    I agree. Also, Joe Random is taking on the task willingly. He has the ability to do it as safely or as dangerously as he wishes. Whereas Jane Bystander (who developed cancer from a nearby radiation indecent) wasn't engaging in any particular activity that caused her death.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Causality1 7y ago

Human beings have an aversion to the fundamental truth of decision-making, which is "shut up and multiply".

falcrist 7y ago

I'm not making an argument that nuclear isn't safe. However, it is inherently high-stakes. A mistake that causes a station blackout for a couple hours can cost thousands of lives and make large swathes of land uninhabitable, costing billions of dollars. What you say about it being the safest in terms of deaths per unit energy is the argument I use to counteract the concern, but I still admit that the concern is legitimate. It's a hell of a way to boil water (Karl Grossman).

MagnumOpus 7y ago
> A mistake that causes a station blackout for a couple hours can cost thousands of lives A mistake that causes a hydro dam burst can cost thousands of lives. A coal power plant operating as designed does cost thousands of lives due to direct pollution and eventually thousands more through climate-change-induced famines. A solar farm of a size that can replace a 3GW nuke plant as baseload doesn't exist yet, would have to have 10-15 GWpeak capacity, would need a 10-15 GWh battery just to cover overnight load-balancing, which is a substantial chunk of global factory capacity for batteries...