6 ms·

Hydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh. EDIT: Almost an order of magnitude if you take the favorable

by shawnz 7y ago

Hydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh. EDIT: Almost an order of magnitude if you take the favorable numbers https://www.businessinsider.com/dam-safety-statistics-risk-of-death-2017-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/dam-safety-statistics-risk-o...

beerandt 7y ago
1.3x-8x multiplier per that source
- philwelch 7y ago
  8x is about 90% of an order of magnitude (calculated via log-base-10 of 8).
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Just meant to clarify, not dispute. Mostly because 1.3x is only 11%.
klingonopera 7y ago
Given the most favorable estimate for nuclear (0.2) and the most deadly for hydro (1.6) from that source, that's not even a single full magnitude. Flip the favorable/deadly bias around, and hydro looks to be safer (1.0 vs. 1.2). EDIT: Also, what's with that variance on nuclear? Another thing is that calculating the long term effects of nuclear fallout is quite difficult. How much evidence for and against could we have for rising cancer rates in Europe since 1986? (I don't actually know what the cancer rates are, but figuring out causation is probably very difficult, and may or may not have something to do with Chernobyl)
- beerandt 7y ago
  You sort of answered your own question re variance. I was shocked, after growing up hearing how horribly deadly Chernobyl was, to discover there were only 30 directly related deaths. Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. But some studies claim 60,000+ cancer related deaths, and growing up, I always assumed there was a morgue somewhere that had thousands of victims piling up in the weeks after meltdown. I felt duped to find that wasn't the case. And cancer rates in general have been rising for 80+ years, so yes, causation is difficult.
  - bb88 7y ago
    > there were only 30 directly related deaths A better statement would have been that "the soviet union reported 31 immediate deaths at the time". That 30 number was highly disputed unto itself, and doesn't include fatal cancers directly caused by radiation exposure. There's an entire wikipedia page about it if you're interested in learning more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I'm familiar with all the various claims. Although I haven't seen anything seriously disputing the 31 on-site number, beyond +/-5. I said >>Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. It's the 10,000+ numbers that I take real issue with. And am skeptical of even the 4,000 "agreed-upon" estimate. I don't doubt radiation was released. I don't doubt radiation exposure can increase risk of cancer. But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. I get that radiation plays a part in increased cancer risk. Claiming that there were 1,010,000 cancer deaths, but there should have only been 1,000,000, and not being able to tell which 10,000 were "caused by Chernobyl" is problematic for me. It diminishes the pain of the other 1,000,000. Is this logical? Idk Some studies in Fukushima claim over 1,000 more people have died by continued forced evacuation, than if they been had been allowed to return to the exclusion zone after a few weeks. It just gets hard to take these numbers seriously when you only have statistical speculation to rely on. Moreso to treat them with the same equivalence as deaths on-site.
      - bb88 7y ago
        > But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. Agreed, but it's necessary if the government lies to you -- which of course was a frequent problem with the soviets. More recently, the Puerto Rico death toll for Hurricane Maria was just 64, and remained that way for a year. The only way it was eventually changed was proving (through statistical analysis) that the death toll was in fact higher.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SkyBelow 7y ago
>Hydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh. Is this factoring in all future deaths from existing nuclear incidents? If nuclear causes 1 death a year for 500 years and hydro causes 100 immediate deaths, which one is more lethal? Also consider the morality of pushing the costs of a failure generations down the road.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The UN estimates (https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm) 4,000 deaths total for Chernobyl. The EPA estimates zero deaths for Three Mile Island. The worst dam failure in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) killed somewhere between 150,000 and 230,000 people. Hydro has a big head start.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    Chernobyl is so different from a modern reactor, that it's not really useful to judge to current risks with existing reactors, let alone planned new Gen III+ reactors which are orders of magnitudes safer.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      In fairness, the same is probably true for dams, as well - we've gotten a lot better at engineering them.
      - geggam 7y ago
        Recent California flooding makes me question this.
        beerandt 7y ago
        Yea, people talk about not being able to fully predict nuclear disasters, then turn around and claim sun, rain, and wind are totally predictive enough to rely on. I get that the risks vary, but man, a lot of people really don't understand statistics and probability.
afiori 7y ago
Everyone agree that statistics are on the side of nuclear power. The problem is that in the case of a very wrong accident the consequences can be very dire, as in transforming half a continent in nuclear wasteland. The question is how much we want to trust the risk.
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  Half a continent? The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone[1] is 30km in diameter, Fukashima's is 20km I believe[2]. Obviously a nightmare if you happen to live in the neighborhood, but I don't think there are any nuclear power plants big enough to turn even a small country into a "nuclear wasteland". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone 2: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11/radioactive-wreckage-inside-fukushimas-nuclear-exclusion-zone-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11...
  - deeg 7y ago
    The sum total of exclusion zones due to nuclear power is tiny when compared to the exclusion zone that will be created by rising sea levels due to global warming.
- shawnz 7y ago
  No, that is not a valid counterargument to the statistical argument of Nuclear's safety. One catastrophic accident is not necessarily worse than many small accidents. In fact that's the whole point behind the argument.
  - afiori 7y ago
    I agree that my comment was ill formed. My point was that when comparing the kind of worst case scenario of nuclear against other energies you get a very different result. In part I am also worried about nuclear power plants in case of war. I understand that there are many advantages on many sides, but in my opinion it is not worth it considering what could happen if thing go very wrong.

by shawnz 7y ago

beerandt 7y ago

1.3x-8x multiplier per that source

philwelch 7y ago
8x is about 90% of an order of magnitude (calculated via log-base-10 of 8).
- beerandt 7y ago
  Just meant to clarify, not dispute. Mostly because 1.3x is only 11%.

klingonopera 7y ago

Given the most favorable estimate for nuclear (0.2) and the most deadly for hydro (1.6) from that source, that's not even a single full magnitude. Flip the favorable/deadly bias around, and hydro looks to be safer (1.0 vs. 1.2). EDIT: Also, what's with that variance on nuclear? Another thing is that calculating the long term effects of nuclear fallout is quite difficult. How much evidence for and against could we have for rising cancer rates in Europe since 1986? (I don't actually know what the cancer rates are, but figuring out causation is probably very difficult, and may or may not have something to do with Chernobyl)

beerandt 7y ago
You sort of answered your own question re variance. I was shocked, after growing up hearing how horribly deadly Chernobyl was, to discover there were only 30 directly related deaths. Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. But some studies claim 60,000+ cancer related deaths, and growing up, I always assumed there was a morgue somewhere that had thousands of victims piling up in the weeks after meltdown. I felt duped to find that wasn't the case. And cancer rates in general have been rising for 80+ years, so yes, causation is difficult.
- bb88 7y ago
  > there were only 30 directly related deaths A better statement would have been that "the soviet union reported 31 immediate deaths at the time". That 30 number was highly disputed unto itself, and doesn't include fatal cancers directly caused by radiation exposure. There's an entire wikipedia page about it if you're interested in learning more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I'm familiar with all the various claims. Although I haven't seen anything seriously disputing the 31 on-site number, beyond +/-5. I said >>Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. It's the 10,000+ numbers that I take real issue with. And am skeptical of even the 4,000 "agreed-upon" estimate. I don't doubt radiation was released. I don't doubt radiation exposure can increase risk of cancer. But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. I get that radiation plays a part in increased cancer risk. Claiming that there were 1,010,000 cancer deaths, but there should have only been 1,000,000, and not being able to tell which 10,000 were "caused by Chernobyl" is problematic for me. It diminishes the pain of the other 1,000,000. Is this logical? Idk Some studies in Fukushima claim over 1,000 more people have died by continued forced evacuation, than if they been had been allowed to return to the exclusion zone after a few weeks. It just gets hard to take these numbers seriously when you only have statistical speculation to rely on. Moreso to treat them with the same equivalence as deaths on-site.
    - bb88 7y ago
      > But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. Agreed, but it's necessary if the government lies to you -- which of course was a frequent problem with the soviets. More recently, the Puerto Rico death toll for Hurricane Maria was just 64, and remained that way for a year. The only way it was eventually changed was proving (through statistical analysis) that the death toll was in fact higher.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

SkyBelow 7y ago

>Hydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh. Is this factoring in all future deaths from existing nuclear incidents? If nuclear causes 1 death a year for 500 years and hydro causes 100 immediate deaths, which one is more lethal? Also consider the morality of pushing the costs of a failure generations down the road.

ceejayoz 7y ago
The UN estimates (https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm) 4,000 deaths total for Chernobyl. The EPA estimates zero deaths for Three Mile Island. The worst dam failure in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) killed somewhere between 150,000 and 230,000 people. Hydro has a big head start.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Chernobyl is so different from a modern reactor, that it's not really useful to judge to current risks with existing reactors, let alone planned new Gen III+ reactors which are orders of magnitudes safer.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    In fairness, the same is probably true for dams, as well - we've gotten a lot better at engineering them.
    - geggam 7y ago
      Recent California flooding makes me question this.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Yea, people talk about not being able to fully predict nuclear disasters, then turn around and claim sun, rain, and wind are totally predictive enough to rely on. I get that the risks vary, but man, a lot of people really don't understand statistics and probability.

afiori 7y ago

Everyone agree that statistics are on the side of nuclear power. The problem is that in the case of a very wrong accident the consequences can be very dire, as in transforming half a continent in nuclear wasteland. The question is how much we want to trust the risk.

blacksmith_tb 7y ago
Half a continent? The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone[1] is 30km in diameter, Fukashima's is 20km I believe[2]. Obviously a nightmare if you happen to live in the neighborhood, but I don't think there are any nuclear power plants big enough to turn even a small country into a "nuclear wasteland". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone 2: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11/radioactive-wreckage-inside-fukushimas-nuclear-exclusion-zone-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11...
- deeg 7y ago
  The sum total of exclusion zones due to nuclear power is tiny when compared to the exclusion zone that will be created by rising sea levels due to global warming.
shawnz 7y ago
No, that is not a valid counterargument to the statistical argument of Nuclear's safety. One catastrophic accident is not necessarily worse than many small accidents. In fact that's the whole point behind the argument.
- afiori 7y ago
  I agree that my comment was ill formed. My point was that when comparing the kind of worst case scenario of nuclear against other energies you get a very different result. In part I am also worried about nuclear power plants in case of war. I understand that there are many advantages on many sides, but in my opinion it is not worth it considering what could happen if thing go very wrong.