5 ms·

How does the first link not demonstrate that nuclear, at 90 deaths per trillion kWh (and this includes all the deaths from the earliest incidents when humanity

How does the first link not demonstrate that nuclear, at 90 deaths per trillion kWh (and this includes all the deaths from the earliest incidents when humanity was just figuring out how to harness nuclear power), is not safer than wind at 150, solar at 440, or coal at 100k? Are you disputing the article? My interpretation of it? The sources it cites? The error bounds on the estimates? What?

pjc50 7y ago
The deaths figure is not the whole story? The areas rendered uninhabitable matter as well.
- missosoup 7y ago
  There is a significantly larger land area rendered uninhabitable by coal mining operations. No one seems to care. The impact of all the nuclear disasters combined is negligible in comparison. Wind power renders larger areas unusable just by the fact of covering that area with wind turbines. No one cares. Solar and wind installations devastate wildlife populations. No one cares. Why should we treat nuclear power differently and discard all of its advantages just because worst-case failures can render small land areas unusable, but smaller than other alternatives already do on a regular basis? I'm not even bringing up the fact that there exist modern reactor designs that are provably incapable of failing like this. The comparison is in favour of nuclear even when we're looking at currently rolled out explode'y reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_co... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522
- ageofwant 7y ago
  Chernobyl is a wildlife haven. Its got one of the highest levels of biodiversity in Eastern Europe.
  - jhgb 7y ago
    Yes, it's a wildlife haven because we decided to let animals instead of humans enjoy the tumors (see e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994720/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994720/). And it turns out that humans are even worse than nuclear fallout for wildlife. I'm not sure if that means that nuclear fallout is good. It most likely means simply that humans are bad.
    - missosoup 7y ago
      What are you talking about? Not only is wildlife thriving there[1], there are multiple permanent human settlements in the area, a growing hospitality sector[2], and a booming tourism industry[3]. If you're looking at elevated frequency of minor abnormalities, you have a few hundred papers relating those to agriculture and mining to sift through. You sound like you've watched too many Hollywood horror films. The only place to get a meaningful dose is inside the sarcophagus or to venture deep into buildings that contain dumped cleanup equipment. Both are fairly difficult to access to wildlife or civilians. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/wildlife-near-nuclear-reactor-chernobyl-2016-4/?r=AU&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/wildlife-near-nuclear-reacto... [2] https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Restaurant_Review-g298058-d10441517-Reviews-Desyatka_Cafe-Chernobyl_Kiev_Oblast.html https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Restaurant_Review-g298058-d10... [3] http://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/chernobyl-sees-tourism-boom-thanks-to-tv-series-on-nuclear-disaster/ http://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/chernobyl-sees-touris...
      - jhgb 7y ago
        It's not a contradiction that wildlife is thriving there, since, as I pointed out, humans were even worse for the wildlife. That means obviously nothing for what effect it would have for humans themselves. I'm in contact with people from our nuclear physics faculty that are doing actual research on this, I don't need to read random articles from your generic newspapers. If I need to know something, I can just go down the hall and ask them. That the exclusion zone still has significant hot spots is what they told me. [EDIT: Your article [1] says basically the same things that I did, most notably the "Nature flourishes when humans are removed from the equation, even after the world's worst nuclear accident" and "The Chernobyl exclusion zone is still considered an unsafe region for humans due to the high levels of radiation". Thanks for that corroboration.]
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
Rooftop solar retrofitted onto existing rooftops, is entirely different from grid scale solar or even solar installed as part of building the roof in the first place. Those would be even lower. The stats are from 2012 and wind and solar have improved markedly since then, generating more per installed item. I didn't notice this link includes wind, the others I see shared usually only have rooftop solar. I know the figures will be very out of date though. Trying to find the source of these wind figures is interesting. The same author links in a later column to what I guess must be the source though he misquotes their global figures as UK only figures. It appears to include suicides by people who live near wind turbines. The totality of 17 deaths globally in 2012 appear to be 17 bus passengers who died in march 2012 in Brazil, but I can't find any trace of a news story to explain what actually happened to them. Basically, it appears to be made up nonsense and even then it only has 3 deaths worldwide last year for wind. This gets amplified further in the retelling, the author of your link however quotes 14 deaths in England alone in one year. Which simply didn't happen. And even then it compare favourably with other sources.
jhgb 7y ago
I once found out mining deaths plausibly caused by health impact of uranium mining in one region I could find data for (the Grants Mining District), and just this figure, after translating the total uranium mined into energy equivalent in contemporary reactors, was appreciably higher that what you're citing, even without counting any other mining accidents, or accidents in the rest of the nuclear industry after mining. So I remain a bit skeptical about that. (But nevertheless it was still low enough to be worth it, especially of course compared to anything coal-based.)

pjc50 7y ago

The deaths figure is not the whole story? The areas rendered uninhabitable matter as well.

missosoup 7y ago
There is a significantly larger land area rendered uninhabitable by coal mining operations. No one seems to care. The impact of all the nuclear disasters combined is negligible in comparison. Wind power renders larger areas unusable just by the fact of covering that area with wind turbines. No one cares. Solar and wind installations devastate wildlife populations. No one cares. Why should we treat nuclear power differently and discard all of its advantages just because worst-case failures can render small land areas unusable, but smaller than other alternatives already do on a regular basis? I'm not even bringing up the fact that there exist modern reactor designs that are provably incapable of failing like this. The comparison is in favour of nuclear even when we're looking at currently rolled out explode'y reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_co... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522
ageofwant 7y ago
Chernobyl is a wildlife haven. Its got one of the highest levels of biodiversity in Eastern Europe.
- jhgb 7y ago
  Yes, it's a wildlife haven because we decided to let animals instead of humans enjoy the tumors (see e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994720/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994720/). And it turns out that humans are even worse than nuclear fallout for wildlife. I'm not sure if that means that nuclear fallout is good. It most likely means simply that humans are bad.
  - missosoup 7y ago
    What are you talking about? Not only is wildlife thriving there[1], there are multiple permanent human settlements in the area, a growing hospitality sector[2], and a booming tourism industry[3]. If you're looking at elevated frequency of minor abnormalities, you have a few hundred papers relating those to agriculture and mining to sift through. You sound like you've watched too many Hollywood horror films. The only place to get a meaningful dose is inside the sarcophagus or to venture deep into buildings that contain dumped cleanup equipment. Both are fairly difficult to access to wildlife or civilians. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/wildlife-near-nuclear-reactor-chernobyl-2016-4/?r=AU&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/wildlife-near-nuclear-reacto... [2] https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Restaurant_Review-g298058-d10441517-Reviews-Desyatka_Cafe-Chernobyl_Kiev_Oblast.html https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Restaurant_Review-g298058-d10... [3] http://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/chernobyl-sees-tourism-boom-thanks-to-tv-series-on-nuclear-disaster/ http://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/chernobyl-sees-touris...
    - jhgb 7y ago
      It's not a contradiction that wildlife is thriving there, since, as I pointed out, humans were even worse for the wildlife. That means obviously nothing for what effect it would have for humans themselves. I'm in contact with people from our nuclear physics faculty that are doing actual research on this, I don't need to read random articles from your generic newspapers. If I need to know something, I can just go down the hall and ask them. That the exclusion zone still has significant hot spots is what they told me. [EDIT: Your article [1] says basically the same things that I did, most notably the "Nature flourishes when humans are removed from the equation, even after the world's worst nuclear accident" and "The Chernobyl exclusion zone is still considered an unsafe region for humans due to the high levels of radiation". Thanks for that corroboration.]

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

Rooftop solar retrofitted onto existing rooftops, is entirely different from grid scale solar or even solar installed as part of building the roof in the first place. Those would be even lower. The stats are from 2012 and wind and solar have improved markedly since then, generating more per installed item. I didn't notice this link includes wind, the others I see shared usually only have rooftop solar. I know the figures will be very out of date though. Trying to find the source of these wind figures is interesting. The same author links in a later column to what I guess must be the source though he misquotes their global figures as UK only figures. It appears to include suicides by people who live near wind turbines. The totality of 17 deaths globally in 2012 appear to be 17 bus passengers who died in march 2012 in Brazil, but I can't find any trace of a news story to explain what actually happened to them. Basically, it appears to be made up nonsense and even then it only has 3 deaths worldwide last year for wind. This gets amplified further in the retelling, the author of your link however quotes 14 deaths in England alone in one year. Which simply didn't happen. And even then it compare favourably with other sources.

jhgb 7y ago

I once found out mining deaths plausibly caused by health impact of uranium mining in one region I could find data for (the Grants Mining District), and just this figure, after translating the total uranium mined into energy equivalent in contemporary reactors, was appreciably higher that what you're citing, even without counting any other mining accidents, or accidents in the rest of the nuclear industry after mining. So I remain a bit skeptical about that. (But nevertheless it was still low enough to be worth it, especially of course compared to anything coal-based.)