4 ms·

Actually, when the alternative is fossil fuels (and it frequently is), you only have to understand that, even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still

Actually, when the alternative is fossil fuels (and it frequently is), you only have to understand that, even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. And please don't give me "we should all use less energy." Even if we should all use less energy, it's still better to generate this less energy from nuclear, as long as we're using fossil fuel now.

keiferski 7y ago
This isn't really the criticism that the OP is making. Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Personally, I agree that nuclear is probably not anti-fragile enough to be a widespread solution. Political instability is the norm, not the rarity, throughout history.
- yongjik 7y ago
  People are advised not to eat too much tuna, because coal polluted the entire ocean with mercury. The worst nuclear disasters pale in comparison to what we did with fossil fuels.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    The problem with this kind of comparison is that nuclear can cause one-time incidents resulting in massive social disruption and economic issues for a period of time. COVID-19 shows that, as a society, the world in general is not prepared for stuff like this; even the initial Chinese quarantines started causing supply chain issues that reverberated around the world. It is much easier to ask people to reduce tuna consumption, than to relocate 100,000+ people, as happened in Fukushima.
- ouid 7y ago
  Eh, Chernobyl is not that bad. It's basically a wildlife refuge now.
- ohyes 7y ago
  >Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Actually, coal irradiates the surrounding area when it is working properly, and it adds to global warming at the same time, it can do both! To be clear, the major concern with nuclear disaster is ground water contamination. That is, the reactor melts through and the corium gets into the groundwater, contaminating it with radiation. After initial evacuation, most of the elements that spread have a relatively short half life and decay quickly. The heavy elements are too heavy to get blown around, but they can irradiate other things (like water) that can get around fairly easily. Chernobyl was a special case because they actually blew up the reactor, and their graphite moderator caught fire, so you got lots of radioactive smoke. Most plants use water or heavy water as a moderator, so at least it doesn't catch fire in a disaster (the steam cloud isn't that great either, but at least it doesn't stick to stuff). Anyway, agree with your anti-fragile opinion in terms of the current (ancient) reactor designs. We really need a new design if it is going to be viable over a longer term.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high. Given the choice & language not being a barrier, I'd prefer to live in Hong Kong at density 6,300 people/sq.km. I'm not sure that irradiating the surrounding area for hundreds of years is as big a blocker as people believe; the earth is huge and we have a surplus of land in places people don't want to live. Most of the earths surface is already practically uninhabitable for humans and we are doing just fine. Ironically, the places where it does matter (island nations like Japan) are almost forced in to nuclear because they have no space. They are probably doing more damage long term going back to fossil fuels than Fukushima did.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    > Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high. Moving to cities for economic opportunities is not a neutral choice in any sense. I’d question that most people actually prefer crowded cities.
    - emiliobumachar 7y ago
      The increased economic opportunity is part of the crowd package. Why don't you think it counts?
      - keiferski 7y ago
        In the late 19th and early 20th century, millions of people moved to industrial centers like London, Manchester (U.K.) and Pittsburgh (USA) for work. These cities were extremely polluted, often to the point where you couldn't see the sun during the day. The exact same thing happened over the past few decades in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China It seems pretty absurd to suggest that anyone neutrally "chose" to live in such miserable surroundings. Clearly they moved there for lack of economic opportunities elsewhere.
- gotstad 7y ago
  Actually coal plants are a huge emitter of radiation already. The radiation emissions of one coal plant might not compare with one full-blown nuclear plant disaster, but it certainly a noteworthy emission on average.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Coal power plants produce hazardous byproducts called "coal ash". [1] The US generates 200 million tons of this highly toxic sludge and most of it just gets dumped in a landfill, contaminating the area for decades. [2] Nuclear is far cleaner, even if the byproduct is radioactive. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash 2. https://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/coal-ash-pollution https://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/coal-ash-pollution
  - bumby 7y ago
    I'm not anti-nuclear, but would you agree that solving the coal waste is an easier problem to solve than the nuclear waste one? I'm not sure that point is a very strong one.
    - magduf 7y ago
      I wouldn't. Coal ash takes up an enormous amount of space, and it can blow around too. Nuclear waste takes up a relatively small volume.
      - bumby 7y ago
        Interesting. I think the opposite. Just the fact that we've spent tens of billions on Yucca mountain alone to have it go nowhere makes me think differently. If I was a contractor faced with solving the coal ash problem or the nuclear waste problem, I'd avoid the latter like the plague even if just for the political difficulties, notwithstanding the engineering part of the problem.
        catalogia 7y ago
        The only reason trillions of dollars haven't been spent cleaning up the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is because we just dump it into the environment instead. If the fossil fuel industry were held accountable for the waste, it would be much more expensive than the boondoggle that is Yucca mountain. (Particularly if CO2 emissions are properly considered...)
- lucidguppy 7y ago
  How much radon is released in natural gas fracking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_and_radionuclides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_and_radio... If the energy industry had to follow the regulations of the nuclear industry - we'd be back in the stone age. Nuclear is the only way we can reach our co2 targets in time. I think renewables and nuclear need to be implemented at the same time.
- opo 7y ago
  >...Coal may kill more people, I don't think there can be any doubt about this.
trhway 7y ago
> even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. increased cancer rates in Belarus (especially in Mogilev and Homel regions - the regions which took the brunt of Chernobyl and where the breast cancer rate for example is double) produce several thousand extra deaths per year. I wonder how a natural gas power plant - the present day alternative to nuclear - would be able to kill so many people.
- ohyes 7y ago
  Chernobyl is not the gold standard for comparison, it was a completely different design (far more dangerous, honestly) from the BWR/PWRs that were built everywhere else.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Fossil fuels produce an estimated > 4 million deaths per year [1]. This isn't even considering the hundreds of millions or more that are at risk of displacement due to climate change, and the conflict that will likely be associated with this displacement. Also, can you substantiate your claim of several thousand extra deaths per year? I'm reading an estimated 5,000 additional cases of cancer (not all of them fatal) in all of Europe over the span of 20 years [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Cancer_assessments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Cancer_asse...
credit_guy 7y ago
I'm pro-nuclear myself, but going to play devil's advocate here. Chernobyl was bad, but it could have been much worse. Also, Chernobyl did actually kill people, and displaced many more. Fossil fuel plants put some stuff in the air, that according to some models do some other stuff that if you squint hard could make you believe that some bajillions of people died. But people don't actually die because there's ash in the air or mercury in tuna fish. It's models that are squeezed like lemons in search for an argument. So, no, nuclear disasters did actually kill people and objectively more than coal power plants.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Chernobyl was bad, but it could have been much worse. How much worse could it possibly have gotten?! > But people don't actually die because there's ash in the air or mercury in tuna fish. Just because it doesn’t go out and visibly stab them to death doesn’t mean people don’t die from them.
- yongjik 7y ago
  When you go to Chernobyl disaster's wikipedia page, it says: > Deaths: 42 acute and delayed (several months), less than 100 at present, possibly several thousand long term extra cases of cancer In other words, if you just count people killed at the site, Chernobyl killed less people than Nigerian oil pipe explosion of 1998, or 2000, or 2003, or 2006. (Damn, why does Nigeria have so many disasters?) Hardly nobody remembers them, because fossil-fuel deaths aren't newsworthy, unlike radiation deaths. Of course, if you count the number of extra cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl, it becomes much higher - maybe thousands, which is basically what you called "according to some models do some other stuff that if you squint hard..." Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, and nuclear always comes out safer.
Barrin92 7y ago
> it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. given how concentrated energy output from nuclear power plants is there are significant other considerations like terrorism, or sabotage, in particular in regions like Africa and Asia which is really the only place where massive expansion of nuclear energy still makes potential sense. There's also the economic costs in case of catastrophy. Depending on the source Fukushima has costed Japan several tens but more likely several hundreds of billions, devalued private property and land or has made it unusable, and so forth.

keiferski 7y ago

This isn't really the criticism that the OP is making. Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Personally, I agree that nuclear is probably not anti-fragile enough to be a widespread solution. Political instability is the norm, not the rarity, throughout history.

yongjik 7y ago
People are advised not to eat too much tuna, because coal polluted the entire ocean with mercury. The worst nuclear disasters pale in comparison to what we did with fossil fuels.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  The problem with this kind of comparison is that nuclear can cause one-time incidents resulting in massive social disruption and economic issues for a period of time. COVID-19 shows that, as a society, the world in general is not prepared for stuff like this; even the initial Chinese quarantines started causing supply chain issues that reverberated around the world. It is much easier to ask people to reduce tuna consumption, than to relocate 100,000+ people, as happened in Fukushima.
ouid 7y ago
Eh, Chernobyl is not that bad. It's basically a wildlife refuge now.
ohyes 7y ago
>Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Actually, coal irradiates the surrounding area when it is working properly, and it adds to global warming at the same time, it can do both! To be clear, the major concern with nuclear disaster is ground water contamination. That is, the reactor melts through and the corium gets into the groundwater, contaminating it with radiation. After initial evacuation, most of the elements that spread have a relatively short half life and decay quickly. The heavy elements are too heavy to get blown around, but they can irradiate other things (like water) that can get around fairly easily. Chernobyl was a special case because they actually blew up the reactor, and their graphite moderator caught fire, so you got lots of radioactive smoke. Most plants use water or heavy water as a moderator, so at least it doesn't catch fire in a disaster (the steam cloud isn't that great either, but at least it doesn't stick to stuff). Anyway, agree with your anti-fragile opinion in terms of the current (ancient) reactor designs. We really need a new design if it is going to be viable over a longer term.
roenxi 7y ago
Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high. Given the choice & language not being a barrier, I'd prefer to live in Hong Kong at density 6,300 people/sq.km. I'm not sure that irradiating the surrounding area for hundreds of years is as big a blocker as people believe; the earth is huge and we have a surplus of land in places people don't want to live. Most of the earths surface is already practically uninhabitable for humans and we are doing just fine. Ironically, the places where it does matter (island nations like Japan) are almost forced in to nuclear because they have no space. They are probably doing more damage long term going back to fossil fuels than Fukushima did.
- keiferski 7y ago
  > Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high. Moving to cities for economic opportunities is not a neutral choice in any sense. I’d question that most people actually prefer crowded cities.
  - emiliobumachar 7y ago
    The increased economic opportunity is part of the crowd package. Why don't you think it counts?
    - keiferski 7y ago
      In the late 19th and early 20th century, millions of people moved to industrial centers like London, Manchester (U.K.) and Pittsburgh (USA) for work. These cities were extremely polluted, often to the point where you couldn't see the sun during the day. The exact same thing happened over the past few decades in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China It seems pretty absurd to suggest that anyone neutrally "chose" to live in such miserable surroundings. Clearly they moved there for lack of economic opportunities elsewhere.
gotstad 7y ago
Actually coal plants are a huge emitter of radiation already. The radiation emissions of one coal plant might not compare with one full-blown nuclear plant disaster, but it certainly a noteworthy emission on average.
manigandham 7y ago
Coal power plants produce hazardous byproducts called "coal ash". [1] The US generates 200 million tons of this highly toxic sludge and most of it just gets dumped in a landfill, contaminating the area for decades. [2] Nuclear is far cleaner, even if the byproduct is radioactive. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash 2. https://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/coal-ash-pollution https://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/coal-ash-pollution
- bumby 7y ago
  I'm not anti-nuclear, but would you agree that solving the coal waste is an easier problem to solve than the nuclear waste one? I'm not sure that point is a very strong one.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I wouldn't. Coal ash takes up an enormous amount of space, and it can blow around too. Nuclear waste takes up a relatively small volume.
    - bumby 7y ago
      Interesting. I think the opposite. Just the fact that we've spent tens of billions on Yucca mountain alone to have it go nowhere makes me think differently. If I was a contractor faced with solving the coal ash problem or the nuclear waste problem, I'd avoid the latter like the plague even if just for the political difficulties, notwithstanding the engineering part of the problem.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        The only reason trillions of dollars haven't been spent cleaning up the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is because we just dump it into the environment instead. If the fossil fuel industry were held accountable for the waste, it would be much more expensive than the boondoggle that is Yucca mountain. (Particularly if CO2 emissions are properly considered...)
lucidguppy 7y ago
How much radon is released in natural gas fracking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_and_radionuclides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_and_radio... If the energy industry had to follow the regulations of the nuclear industry - we'd be back in the stone age. Nuclear is the only way we can reach our co2 targets in time. I think renewables and nuclear need to be implemented at the same time.
opo 7y ago
>...Coal may kill more people, I don't think there can be any doubt about this.

trhway 7y ago

> even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. increased cancer rates in Belarus (especially in Mogilev and Homel regions - the regions which took the brunt of Chernobyl and where the breast cancer rate for example is double) produce several thousand extra deaths per year. I wonder how a natural gas power plant - the present day alternative to nuclear - would be able to kill so many people.

ohyes 7y ago
Chernobyl is not the gold standard for comparison, it was a completely different design (far more dangerous, honestly) from the BWR/PWRs that were built everywhere else.
manfredo 7y ago
Fossil fuels produce an estimated > 4 million deaths per year [1]. This isn't even considering the hundreds of millions or more that are at risk of displacement due to climate change, and the conflict that will likely be associated with this displacement. Also, can you substantiate your claim of several thousand extra deaths per year? I'm reading an estimated 5,000 additional cases of cancer (not all of them fatal) in all of Europe over the span of 20 years [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Cancer_assessments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Cancer_asse...

credit_guy 7y ago

I'm pro-nuclear myself, but going to play devil's advocate here. Chernobyl was bad, but it could have been much worse. Also, Chernobyl did actually kill people, and displaced many more. Fossil fuel plants put some stuff in the air, that according to some models do some other stuff that if you squint hard could make you believe that some bajillions of people died. But people don't actually die because there's ash in the air or mercury in tuna fish. It's models that are squeezed like lemons in search for an argument. So, no, nuclear disasters did actually kill people and objectively more than coal power plants.

saagarjha 7y ago
> Chernobyl was bad, but it could have been much worse. How much worse could it possibly have gotten?! > But people don't actually die because there's ash in the air or mercury in tuna fish. Just because it doesn’t go out and visibly stab them to death doesn’t mean people don’t die from them.
yongjik 7y ago
When you go to Chernobyl disaster's wikipedia page, it says: > Deaths: 42 acute and delayed (several months), less than 100 at present, possibly several thousand long term extra cases of cancer In other words, if you just count people killed at the site, Chernobyl killed less people than Nigerian oil pipe explosion of 1998, or 2000, or 2003, or 2006. (Damn, why does Nigeria have so many disasters?) Hardly nobody remembers them, because fossil-fuel deaths aren't newsworthy, unlike radiation deaths. Of course, if you count the number of extra cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl, it becomes much higher - maybe thousands, which is basically what you called "according to some models do some other stuff that if you squint hard..." Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, and nuclear always comes out safer.

Barrin92 7y ago

> it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. given how concentrated energy output from nuclear power plants is there are significant other considerations like terrorism, or sabotage, in particular in regions like Africa and Asia which is really the only place where massive expansion of nuclear energy still makes potential sense. There's also the economic costs in case of catastrophy. Depending on the source Fukushima has costed Japan several tens but more likely several hundreds of billions, devalued private property and land or has made it unusable, and so forth.