3 ms·

First, point out that Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima amount to extremely small numbers of deaths relative to the power these plants generated. For thre

First, point out that Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima amount to extremely small numbers of deaths relative to the power these plants generated. For three mile island and Fukushima this figure is zero among the public. Less than two dozen among the plant workers (all of which died due to the hydrogen explosion not radiation). The areas that were evacuated are now safe to return. Chernobyl was worse, but th Soviets didn't even bother with secondary containment. They didn't bother to put a concrete dome over the reactor. Even then, ~200 people died. This is a fairly small death toll for a worst-case failure. Contrast this with hydroelectricity, for example, which has resulted in the deaths of tena of thousands of people and the displacement of millions due to dam collapses [1]. Competition in the form of wind and solar are intermittent, requiring storage on a massive scale to offer a path to decarbonization. With 12 hours of energy storage, the US could reach 80% renewable generation. To get to 100% we need 3 weeks of storage according to estimates [2]. Currently, we have 8 seconds of battery storage compared to our 11.5 TWh daily electricity consumption. We have 4 minutes of hydroelectric storage, but hydroelectric storage is geographically limited. Increasing this by a factor of 180 is not feasible. In short, if the goal is decarbonization wind and solar don't actually present real competition. 1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam 2. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...

shpeedy 6y ago
You are joking about "small numbers of deaths", right?, because this millennia is not over yet.
- blamestross 6y ago
  Coal and gas still kill a LOT more https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ Less dramatically so do Solar and Wind just by increased rate of people falling off roofs and towers: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
beders 6y ago
> First, point out that Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima amount to extremely small numbers of deaths relative to the power these plants generated. I keep seeing justifications like that and it makes me want to puke. First of all: The total number of victims is unknown and it is still rising. Even for Chernobyl. Second: It costs tens of billions of dollars to clean up these messes. Paid for by the cow you can milk forever: tax payers. In short, if the goal is decarbonization wind and solar are the only game in town. Add medium and long-term storage to the mix and there's nothing stopping us from a truly green future other than politics.
- lalaithion 6y ago
  Coal plants kill more people each year during normal operation than Chernobyl, 3 Mile, and Fukushima killed over all time. "In 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) and other organizations calculated that coal particulates pollution cause approximately one million deaths annually across the world" "Long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations) for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe, with figures as high as 60,000 when including the relatively minor effects around the globe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_environmental_impac... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
- manfredo 6y ago
  > I keep seeing justifications like that and it makes me want to puke. First of all: The total number of victims is unknown and it is still rising. Even for Chernobyl. The total number of victims was unknown for Chernobyl. We didn't know what the impact on cancer rates would be. But it isn't the 1980s anymore. We can compare the rates of cancer and other radiation related illnesses among the people who experienced Chernobyl and the general population. The radiation exposure due to Fukushima and 3 Mile Island was insufficient to cause adverse health effects. Yes, we do know the impact of these failures. 3 Mile Island took $1 billion to clean up not 10 billion. The exclusion zones around Chernobyl and Fukushima represent greater economic tolls, but the latter has since been lifted. By comparison, what is your cost estimate to build 3 weeks of energy storage in the US? Sure, wind and solar could work if there's a scientific breakthrough that makes energy storage extremely cheap and scalable by several orders of magnitude. But until that scientific breakthrough in storage happens, nuclear and renewables aren't even playing the same game.
riffraff 6y ago
> the areas that were evacuated are now safe to return. is this true for Fukushima? As far as I understand, 8% of the "Difficult-to-Return zones" have been cleared up for access to people, but that is a far cry from "all cleared up, everybody goes back home". [0] https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200916/p2a/00m/0na/013000c https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200916/p2a/00m/0na/01...
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  The "difficult to return zones" are exactly that: the subset of zones that are represent the greatest challenge to resettle. Most of the exclusion zones with less severe categories have been lifted [1]. The point is, people assume because of Chernobyl that a nuclear disaster will render land uninhabitable permanently, or at least for decades. That is not the case. Chernobyl remains excluded because there's no real incentive to clean it up and reopen. The city was built to support the power plant, so with the latter gone there's no real reason to put in the effort to decontaminate the former. 1. https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08.html#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20evacuation%20designeted%20zones,Return%20zones)%20have%20been%20lifted https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08....

shpeedy 6y ago

You are joking about "small numbers of deaths", right?, because this millennia is not over yet.

blamestross 6y ago
Coal and gas still kill a LOT more https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ Less dramatically so do Solar and Wind just by increased rate of people falling off roofs and towers: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

beders 6y ago

> First, point out that Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima amount to extremely small numbers of deaths relative to the power these plants generated. I keep seeing justifications like that and it makes me want to puke. First of all: The total number of victims is unknown and it is still rising. Even for Chernobyl. Second: It costs tens of billions of dollars to clean up these messes. Paid for by the cow you can milk forever: tax payers. In short, if the goal is decarbonization wind and solar are the only game in town. Add medium and long-term storage to the mix and there's nothing stopping us from a truly green future other than politics.

lalaithion 6y ago
Coal plants kill more people each year during normal operation than Chernobyl, 3 Mile, and Fukushima killed over all time. "In 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) and other organizations calculated that coal particulates pollution cause approximately one million deaths annually across the world" "Long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations) for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe, with figures as high as 60,000 when including the relatively minor effects around the globe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_environmental_impac... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
manfredo 6y ago
> I keep seeing justifications like that and it makes me want to puke. First of all: The total number of victims is unknown and it is still rising. Even for Chernobyl. The total number of victims was unknown for Chernobyl. We didn't know what the impact on cancer rates would be. But it isn't the 1980s anymore. We can compare the rates of cancer and other radiation related illnesses among the people who experienced Chernobyl and the general population. The radiation exposure due to Fukushima and 3 Mile Island was insufficient to cause adverse health effects. Yes, we do know the impact of these failures. 3 Mile Island took $1 billion to clean up not 10 billion. The exclusion zones around Chernobyl and Fukushima represent greater economic tolls, but the latter has since been lifted. By comparison, what is your cost estimate to build 3 weeks of energy storage in the US? Sure, wind and solar could work if there's a scientific breakthrough that makes energy storage extremely cheap and scalable by several orders of magnitude. But until that scientific breakthrough in storage happens, nuclear and renewables aren't even playing the same game.

riffraff 6y ago

> the areas that were evacuated are now safe to return. is this true for Fukushima? As far as I understand, 8% of the "Difficult-to-Return zones" have been cleared up for access to people, but that is a far cry from "all cleared up, everybody goes back home". [0] https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200916/p2a/00m/0na/013000c https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200916/p2a/00m/0na/01...

Manfredo_1 6y ago
The "difficult to return zones" are exactly that: the subset of zones that are represent the greatest challenge to resettle. Most of the exclusion zones with less severe categories have been lifted [1]. The point is, people assume because of Chernobyl that a nuclear disaster will render land uninhabitable permanently, or at least for decades. That is not the case. Chernobyl remains excluded because there's no real incentive to clean it up and reopen. The city was built to support the power plant, so with the latter gone there's no real reason to put in the effort to decontaminate the former. 1. https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08.html#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20evacuation%20designeted%20zones,Return%20zones)%20have%20been%20lifted https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08....