4 ms·

nuclear is dangerous. there are no headlines about solar or wind farms causing deadly accidents like this EDIT: that can impact several cities in a region

• kasey_junk 7y ago
  How many solar and wind missiles are there?
  • ptah 7y ago
    they were developing small power sources for example domestic use
    • DennisP 7y ago
      The very first four words of the article call it a "failed missile test." Later it says "the blast occurred Aug. 8 during a test of a missile that used “isotope power sources.”"
• gnode 7y ago
  Solar and wind make for poor cruise missile propulsion systems.
  • ptah 7y ago
    sure, but if even the top russian experts die in a test then surely it is not suitable for normal power generation
    • gnode 7y ago
      A cruise missile nuclear jet engine is indeed not suitable for normal power generation.
  • yummybear 7y ago
    It's a "bit" of a stretch, but you could consider scramjet as wind powered propulsion :)
• JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  Nope, never: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cd_1383772851 https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cd_1383772851
  • ptah 7y ago
    there is no risk to other cities in the region though
    • JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      Now we're moving the goalposts...
      • ptah 7y ago
        the goalposts has always been the massive continent wide risk that nuclear disaster has
        • garmaine 7y ago
          Nuclear has never had that risk. I'm guessing you saw the miniseries Chernobyl? The producers took severe liberties with the source material in some of the more dramatic scenes. It is physically impossible for a reactor meltdown to cause "continent-wide" risks.
          • ptah 7y ago
            lol, you believe what you see on TV? here is a report that clearly states chernobyl had Europe-wide consequences "The Chernobyl fallout had a major impact on both agricultural and natural ecosystems in Belarus,Russia and Ukraine, as well as in many other European countries." http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/581972/EPRS_BRI(2016)581972_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/58197...
• scrollaway 7y ago
  One of the many problems with your reasoning is the scale at which a single nuclear plant provides power, vs a single wind/solar farm. For the amount of equivalent solar/wind farms required to provide the same amount of power as a single nuclear plant, you most certainly WOULD have much greater impacts than you think.
• garmaine 7y ago
  "Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl." https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... People have an unfortunate tendency to fall off roofs and break their necks when installing solar power panels.
  • ptah 7y ago
    that would be one person, not all the cities in the entire region as would be in danger from a small nuclear reactor malfunction, as in OP
    • garmaine 7y ago
      That's not how utilitarian math works, sorry. You want to minimize harm? Calculate how much harm per unit energy is done by a source of power. If you actually do that math, you'll find that nuclear is the SAFEST option out there, despite what you might have been led to believe.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• nickik 7y ago
  This statement is such nonsense in so many ways. First of all, comparing all nuclear research to solar and wind for civilian energy use is already bias. Second of all, people die on wind farms all the time. The death toll for wind farms is far higher then for civilian nuclear power. Production of solar panels actually involves a whole lot of chemicals and those can leak and kill people. Not to mention that solar panels produce mountains not so nice waste and that people fall to death putting the panels up. Nuclear power is the safest source of energy if we are going by actual data.
  • lolc 7y ago
    > Nuclear power is the safest source of energy if we are going by actual data. It's nice to use geothermal energy from a volcano. But there are reasons we don't build more volcanoes.
    • nickik 7y ago
      I think you think you said something smart, while actually you said something very dumb.
      • lolc 7y ago
        In what way?
  • ptah 7y ago
    you are going by the data SO FAR. it still has the potential to wipe out ecosystems continent-wide. you sound like the finance industry in 2006 speaking about MBS
    • nickik 7y ago
      Yes because the past is a great indicator most of the time. And the idea that civilan nuclear power can 'wipe out the ecosystem continent-wide' is just total and complete nonsense. Please actually inform yourself about the dangers of nuclear power. Chernobyl was about the most dangerous thing you can produce with that level of enrichmnet. Nothing in the West even comes close. And Fukushima was about the most dangerous thing that can happen with civilian reactor in the West and its not even close to 'wipe out ecosystesms'. In fact nobody died from radation because of Fukushima.