3 ms·

"This is typical of people who aren’t educated about nuclear power." This is typical of people who are aware of Chernobyl and Fukushima. There have not been ut

"This is typical of people who aren’t educated about nuclear power." This is typical of people who are aware of Chernobyl and Fukushima. There have not been utility-scale many nuclear power plants in the history of the world. The fact that two out of ~600 failed catastrophically makes natural gas, wind and solar look really safe by comparison (especially since they are all cheaper and do not produce radioactive waste that lasts forever). How many catastrophic energy plant failures can you name that were not nuclear?

yongjik 6y ago
Does it have to energy plants, or does general infrastructure qualify? Because, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents
jdavis703 6y ago
Non-renewable plants are still responsible for far more deaths than nuclear plants. The choice is: do we want a safer plant that fails in a sensational manner every few decades or do we want a more dangerous plant that steadily emits lethal pollution?
soperj 6y ago
There have been plenty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_... Worst being Banqiao and Shimantan Dams failure that killed nearly 200 thousand people.
jiggawatts 6y ago
The Banqiao and Shimantan dam failures in China killed ~170K people. The Machchu-2 dam failure killed 5K people in India. The South Fork dam failure killed 2K people in the US. Coal mining directly killed over 100 people annually up until the mid 1980s, and continues to kill 10-30 people annually. Oil drilling in general kills about 100-110 people annually. There's not much good data for wind turbines, but generally wind power kills 10+ people annually, either due to fires in the turbine housing or falls. There have been a number of deaths at various power plants, often due to electrocution or steam boiler explosions. The only truly safe power utility-scale power source in widespread use is solar. BTW: Fukushima killed 1 person directly due to the nuclear material. Even Chernobyl only killed between 30 to 80 people directly, depending on how you count it. If you want to count indirect deaths due to Chernobyl and Fukushima, then you also have to compare that to indirect deaths due to traditional power. You don't want to know how many people diesel, oil, and coal kill annually!
- catalogia 6y ago
  Dam failures can be truly horrific. When the South Fork Dam failed and flooded Johnstown, the floodwaters smashed a bunch of people, a barbed wire factory and various other debris into a stone bridge (which still stands today.) The debris, a tangle of wood, people (many still alive), and twisted metal, then caught fire and burned for days, killing dozens. They had to use dynamite to clear the wreckage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Bridge_(Johnstown,_Pennsylvania) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Bridge_(Johnstown,_Penns...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > The only truly safe power utility-scale power source in widespread use is solar. Apparently a fair number of people die from solar as a result of falling off of roofs.
  - jiggawatts 6y ago
    I'm only considering utility-scale power. Those are ground-level, not rooftop installations. If you want to include all forms of "home" power generation, including heating and cooking, then wood fireplaces are mass-murderers, killing tens of thousands due to particulate pollution and carbon monoxide poisoning. Not to mention homes burning down and killing the occupants.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > BTW: Fukushima killed 1 person directly due to the nuclear material. Even Chernobyl only killed between 30 to 80 people directly, depending on how you count it. Only a pedant would write that. A quarter million Fukushima residents have lived in school gyms for years. How many lived in jail-like conditions until death?
  - fomine3 6y ago
    Definitely not for years. Temporary housing had widely prepared at least in few month.
Reedx 6y ago
Nuclear energy is far safer than gas, and about the same as wind/solar: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#modern-renewables-are-about-as-safe-as-nuclear-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#modern-r...

yongjik 6y ago

Does it have to energy plants, or does general infrastructure qualify? Because, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

jdavis703 6y ago

Non-renewable plants are still responsible for far more deaths than nuclear plants. The choice is: do we want a safer plant that fails in a sensational manner every few decades or do we want a more dangerous plant that steadily emits lethal pollution?

soperj 6y ago

There have been plenty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_... Worst being Banqiao and Shimantan Dams failure that killed nearly 200 thousand people.

jiggawatts 6y ago

The Banqiao and Shimantan dam failures in China killed ~170K people. The Machchu-2 dam failure killed 5K people in India. The South Fork dam failure killed 2K people in the US. Coal mining directly killed over 100 people annually up until the mid 1980s, and continues to kill 10-30 people annually. Oil drilling in general kills about 100-110 people annually. There's not much good data for wind turbines, but generally wind power kills 10+ people annually, either due to fires in the turbine housing or falls. There have been a number of deaths at various power plants, often due to electrocution or steam boiler explosions. The only truly safe power utility-scale power source in widespread use is solar. BTW: Fukushima killed 1 person directly due to the nuclear material. Even Chernobyl only killed between 30 to 80 people directly, depending on how you count it. If you want to count indirect deaths due to Chernobyl and Fukushima, then you also have to compare that to indirect deaths due to traditional power. You don't want to know how many people diesel, oil, and coal kill annually!

catalogia 6y ago
Dam failures can be truly horrific. When the South Fork Dam failed and flooded Johnstown, the floodwaters smashed a bunch of people, a barbed wire factory and various other debris into a stone bridge (which still stands today.) The debris, a tangle of wood, people (many still alive), and twisted metal, then caught fire and burned for days, killing dozens. They had to use dynamite to clear the wreckage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Bridge_(Johnstown,_Pennsylvania) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Bridge_(Johnstown,_Penns...
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> The only truly safe power utility-scale power source in widespread use is solar. Apparently a fair number of people die from solar as a result of falling off of roofs.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  I'm only considering utility-scale power. Those are ground-level, not rooftop installations. If you want to include all forms of "home" power generation, including heating and cooking, then wood fireplaces are mass-murderers, killing tens of thousands due to particulate pollution and carbon monoxide poisoning. Not to mention homes burning down and killing the occupants.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> BTW: Fukushima killed 1 person directly due to the nuclear material. Even Chernobyl only killed between 30 to 80 people directly, depending on how you count it. Only a pedant would write that. A quarter million Fukushima residents have lived in school gyms for years. How many lived in jail-like conditions until death?
- fomine3 6y ago
  Definitely not for years. Temporary housing had widely prepared at least in few month.

Reedx 6y ago

Nuclear energy is far safer than gas, and about the same as wind/solar: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#modern-renewables-are-about-as-safe-as-nuclear-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#modern-r...