3 ms·

From the IAEA: (http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.charts.htm http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.charts.htm) 442 active reactors 125 shut

by gamble 16y ago

From the IAEA: (http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.charts.htm http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.charts.htm) 442 active reactors 125 shutdown reactors --- 567 total Destroyed reactors: Unit 2 TMI Units 1-4 Fukushima Unit 4 Chernobyl Percentage of reactors totally destroyed in accidents: 1.04% including Chernobyl 0.87% excluding Chernobyl I defy you to find another power generation technology that has a total failure rate this severe.

tptacek 16y ago
By "severe accident" you appear to mean "event that renders a plant incapable of further operation", which is an analysis that suggests that hard drives are more dangerous than nuclear power. This seems like a disingenuous way to dodge the simpler and more relevant statistic: how many fatalities are attributable to nuclear vs. coal.
- gamble 16y ago
  What are you, HN's resident troll? I responded politely and informatively to your dickish 'citation needed' post, and your only response is to call me disingenuous?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Thank you for finding an interesting statistic. I was just thinking, while ordering pizza for my family, that despite the fact that your statistic absolutely didn't make the case your original uncited post made, I was still happy to see it, and appreciative that you'd take the time to find it. I disagree with you. Strongly. I think you're on the wrong side of an argument that simple math demonstrates the right side of. But I don't think you're a jerk for making your argument, and certainly don't mean to be "dickish".
- crux_ 16y ago
  I disagree that fatalities are the most relevant thing to measure. How about a nice simple metric of dollars/kWh, including an accurate accounting for externalities? (I'd also like a pony.)
yread 16y ago
I believe there were actually more (not that it makes nuclear power less secure): Jaslovske bohunice A-1: plant contaminated and decomissioned http://www.omegainfo.sk/kuruc_30th_anniversary_of_reactor_accident_in_A-1_NPP.pdf http://www.omegainfo.sk/kuruc_30th_anniversary_of_reactor_ac... Chalk River: reactor destroyed http://www.ccnr.org/paulson_legacy.html http://www.ccnr.org/paulson_legacy.html But from this (a bad list but I couldn't find better) http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-... it seems that the reprocessing plants are much more dangerous than the actual nuclear plants.

by gamble 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

By "severe accident" you appear to mean "event that renders a plant incapable of further operation", which is an analysis that suggests that hard drives are more dangerous than nuclear power. This seems like a disingenuous way to dodge the simpler and more relevant statistic: how many fatalities are attributable to nuclear vs. coal.

gamble 16y ago
What are you, HN's resident troll? I responded politely and informatively to your dickish 'citation needed' post, and your only response is to call me disingenuous?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Thank you for finding an interesting statistic. I was just thinking, while ordering pizza for my family, that despite the fact that your statistic absolutely didn't make the case your original uncited post made, I was still happy to see it, and appreciative that you'd take the time to find it. I disagree with you. Strongly. I think you're on the wrong side of an argument that simple math demonstrates the right side of. But I don't think you're a jerk for making your argument, and certainly don't mean to be "dickish".
crux_ 16y ago
I disagree that fatalities are the most relevant thing to measure. How about a nice simple metric of dollars/kWh, including an accurate accounting for externalities? (I'd also like a pony.)

yread 16y ago

I believe there were actually more (not that it makes nuclear power less secure): Jaslovske bohunice A-1: plant contaminated and decomissioned http://www.omegainfo.sk/kuruc_30th_anniversary_of_reactor_accident_in_A-1_NPP.pdf http://www.omegainfo.sk/kuruc_30th_anniversary_of_reactor_ac... Chalk River: reactor destroyed http://www.ccnr.org/paulson_legacy.html http://www.ccnr.org/paulson_legacy.html But from this (a bad list but I couldn't find better) http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-... it seems that the reprocessing plants are much more dangerous than the actual nuclear plants.