4 ms·

Overengineering is not a bad thing in real-world engineering, to be clear.

ajuc 7y ago
It is when you overengineer safety for 1 technology and ignore it for the alternatives, and then compare the costs ignoring the safety record. Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity) Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity) Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity) Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) Source (2012): https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4d114152709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... If people wanted solar power to be as safe as nuclear powerplants it would have to be much more expansive than it is now. But apparently deaths are ok as long as it's not from nuclear powerplants :/
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  So you are going to use the official Soviet figures for deaths due to Chernobyl? That does not lend credibility to your argument. Also keep in mind, that accident could have been much, much worse and nearly was so. It could have rendered much of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    What do you want to use instead? If you like you can increase the Chernobyl number by 1,000x. The point still stands; nuclear is measurably, unambiguously and has proven to be safer than coal in every way that effects humans. Except evacuation risk. Which is still tiny vs any reasonable standard. Plus the modern designs are different from the Soviet designs. They have improved. We have Computer-aided design now.
  - detritus 7y ago
    > It could have rendered much of Europe uninhabitable for centuries. I've seen this bandied around a bit over the past few months - perhaps something to do with a certain TV show? - but despite trying, I've never found anything that substantiates the claim.

ajuc 7y ago

It is when you overengineer safety for 1 technology and ignore it for the alternatives, and then compare the costs ignoring the safety record. Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity) Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity) Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity) Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) Source (2012): https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4d114152709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... If people wanted solar power to be as safe as nuclear powerplants it would have to be much more expansive than it is now. But apparently deaths are ok as long as it's not from nuclear powerplants :/

jeremyjh 7y ago
So you are going to use the official Soviet figures for deaths due to Chernobyl? That does not lend credibility to your argument. Also keep in mind, that accident could have been much, much worse and nearly was so. It could have rendered much of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.
- roenxi 7y ago
  What do you want to use instead? If you like you can increase the Chernobyl number by 1,000x. The point still stands; nuclear is measurably, unambiguously and has proven to be safer than coal in every way that effects humans. Except evacuation risk. Which is still tiny vs any reasonable standard. Plus the modern designs are different from the Soviet designs. They have improved. We have Computer-aided design now.
- detritus 7y ago
  > It could have rendered much of Europe uninhabitable for centuries. I've seen this bandied around a bit over the past few months - perhaps something to do with a certain TV show? - but despite trying, I've never found anything that substantiates the claim.