15 ms·

When you compare Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Wind, Solar, and Hydro, Nuclear comes out by far as the safest technology [1]. Coal is incredibly dangerous direct

When you compare Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Wind, Solar, and Hydro, Nuclear comes out by far as the safest technology [1]. Coal is incredibly dangerous directly - mining and operation are generally unsafe. Hydro has had some terrible accidents like the Chinese Banqiao dam rupture in 1975 which killed tens or hundreds of thousands. Solar and wind I'm not too sure about, but nuclear power has tens of deaths total attributed to it. The nuclear-relate deaths that occurred have been from using light-water reactors, which are essentially very-high pressure high-temperature radioactive containers. Modern designs like molten salt reactors (like LFTR) have the potential to be safer, but don't have regulatory support and are mired in the process [2]. I made a whole infographic about the safety of nuclear power, but I'm not an engineer or journalist [3] [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#39c8081d709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2]: https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201101/hargraves.cfm https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201101/hargraves.c... [3]: https://create.piktochart.com/output/37686680-safe-nuclear-power https://create.piktochart.com/output/37686680-safe-nuclear-p...

dredmorbius 6y ago
Per IPCC, wind and solar are very nearly on par with (possibly better) than nuclear. It's coal that really drags down the average, and yes, we need to stop using that. Hydro's mortality is largey attributable to a single, though immensely bad incident, the Chinese Banqiao Dam disaster of 1975. That itself was a consequence of poor engineering, planning, management, response, and an unanticipated weather event (parked typhoon/cold-front dumping > 1,000mm rain in 24h), with most issues being common to any high-profile technical engineering project. Hydro otherwise is largely safe (there are a few other exceptions, again higghligghting planning, management, response, and institutional integrity, especially in developing regions or periods), problems not specific to the energy-harnessing mechanism) and the Banqiao site is presently home to > 15 millions, rather than being a multi-century technically-induced wildlife park as is the case with other technologies.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >That itself was a consequence of poor engineering, planning, management, response, and an unanticipated weather event Absolutely the same can be said about Chernobyl (well, apart from the weather) and Fukusima.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Precisely my point. Though to clarify: as non-engineering failures, there is no technical engineering fix to this problem.
- aledalgrande 6y ago
  A similar case happened in Italy, and again, because of corruption that led to bad engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Banqiao, China (~170k mort, almost all to disease and starvation, planning/response was abysmal); Machchu2, India (5k, 1979), Johnstown, US (2.2k, 1889, birthed Red Cross and reformed liability law), Vaijont, Italy (2.5k, 1963 landslide-triggered tsunami overtopped dam). Seven topped 1,000 fatalities, of which one was an act of war. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure) There are literally tens of thousand of dams, if not > 100k, worldwide (over 22k in China alone), with well over a century of major utilisation. Granted 100 or fewer major (2+GWe) installations. There are fewer than 400 nuclear power stations worldwide (3911 by my count from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations...), the bulk in operation for less than 50 years. We've had three major disasters and numerous close calls, all with massive long-term consequences. Building out infrastructure to the scale of present or future (industrialised-world electric provisioning to 8-12 billion inhabitants) would see even at much better safety records* a major accident every few years. And that's only one disadvantage. Notably, once floodwaters recede, even a catastrophic dam failure returns to livable condition rapidly: weeks to years, rather than centuries. And, as noted, it's human, social, business, and organisational factor common to any major high-value asset technical project generally to blame.
cwkoss 6y ago
> but nuclear power has tens of deaths total attributed to it. I'm skeptical of this figure - Chernobyl alone is expected to cause ~4k+ deaths due to radiation exposure. I'm sure nuclear is still significantly lower than combustion fuels, but I'd expect solar is somewhat safer.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Per IPCC, wind and solar are very nearly on par with (possibly better) than nuclear. It's coal that really drags down the average, and yes, we need to stop using that. Hydro's mortality is largey attributable to a single, though immensely bad incident, the Chinese Banqiao Dam disaster of 1975. That itself was a consequence of poor engineering, planning, management, response, and an unanticipated weather event (parked typhoon/cold-front dumping > 1,000mm rain in 24h), with most issues being common to any high-profile technical engineering project. Hydro otherwise is largely safe (there are a few other exceptions, again higghligghting planning, management, response, and institutional integrity, especially in developing regions or periods), problems not specific to the energy-harnessing mechanism) and the Banqiao site is presently home to > 15 millions, rather than being a multi-century technically-induced wildlife park as is the case with other technologies.

fuoqi 6y ago
>That itself was a consequence of poor engineering, planning, management, response, and an unanticipated weather event Absolutely the same can be said about Chernobyl (well, apart from the weather) and Fukusima.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Precisely my point. Though to clarify: as non-engineering failures, there is no technical engineering fix to this problem.
aledalgrande 6y ago
A similar case happened in Italy, and again, because of corruption that led to bad engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Banqiao, China (~170k mort, almost all to disease and starvation, planning/response was abysmal); Machchu2, India (5k, 1979), Johnstown, US (2.2k, 1889, birthed Red Cross and reformed liability law), Vaijont, Italy (2.5k, 1963 landslide-triggered tsunami overtopped dam). Seven topped 1,000 fatalities, of which one was an act of war. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure) There are literally tens of thousand of dams, if not > 100k, worldwide (over 22k in China alone), with well over a century of major utilisation. Granted 100 or fewer major (2+GWe) installations. There are fewer than 400 nuclear power stations worldwide (3911 by my count from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations...), the bulk in operation for less than 50 years. We've had three major disasters and numerous close calls, all with massive long-term consequences. Building out infrastructure to the scale of present or future (industrialised-world electric provisioning to 8-12 billion inhabitants) would see even at much better safety records* a major accident every few years. And that's only one disadvantage. Notably, once floodwaters recede, even a catastrophic dam failure returns to livable condition rapidly: weeks to years, rather than centuries. And, as noted, it's human, social, business, and organisational factor common to any major high-value asset technical project generally to blame.

cwkoss 6y ago

> but nuclear power has tens of deaths total attributed to it. I'm skeptical of this figure - Chernobyl alone is expected to cause ~4k+ deaths due to radiation exposure. I'm sure nuclear is still significantly lower than combustion fuels, but I'd expect solar is somewhat safer.