6 ms·

This death per TWh calculation is naive. In reality modeling and averages are not enough here. If can tell a coal plant kills X people per year, then I can pre

This death per TWh calculation is naive. In reality modeling and averages are not enough here. If can tell a coal plant kills X people per year, then I can pretty safely deduce it will kill somewhere between 0.9X and 1.1X people next year. (Made up numbers, but the point holds) For nuclear, we can easily estimate with the same models the damage. One miscalculation, or one disastrous outcome can cause 50000 deaths, or turn the entirety of New York City to radiated ground that has to be avoided for decades. As long as the extrapolations for nuclear are prone to extreme outcomes, nuclear is more unpredictable and therefore has more danger potential. This is why small nuclear reactors which fail independently are the way to turn nuclear plants into common energy source. They can reduce our fragility to extreme Chernobyl like outcomes.

DoctorOetker 6y ago
the price of protecting many small nuclear reactors against say aeroplanes will rise per watt. I certainly agree with death per TWh calculations being naive, but for a different reason: ethics trumps metrics. If I agree to climb a roof and maintain some solar panels in exchange for money, I am risking my own life and limb. A child 100 years from now will not fall off in my place. If you agree to work in a nuclear reactor today, in theory a child in the future could get cancer from a mishap today. Put differently: even if eating 20 grams of human babies cured AIDS, and hence many lives could be saved in exchange for one, does not justify the trade. We expect informed consent of all parties involved.
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  How do you quantify the life and healthcost of the mining, “recycling”, and disposal of the PV and the battery? PV and batteries are expected to last only three decades or a decade+, respectively. Unlike a centralized power source, decentralized power has all of the downsides that we have today with consumer garbage. Disposal is left to the consumer, which means it’s just going into landfills. Ethics is a strawman.
  - DoctorOetker 6y ago
    As long as the mining activity was by informed consent, i.e. no slavery explicit nor implicit, any life and healthcost of mining, recycling and disposal is incurred with informed consent...
    - nobodyandproud 6y ago
      The effects of mining and disposal don’t disappear after one generation, and solar and wind is not a solution that works for all climates and regions. The multi-generational ethical problems you’ve constructed apply to oil; gas; solar; windmills; nuclear. To put it another way: There is no free lunch, but some sources like gas and oil must be reduced. Of that there is no doubt. The unethical choice is to outright disregard other proven solutions because of unfounded fear and doubt, and leave an irreversible disaster for the next generation.
      - DoctorOetker 6y ago
        sorting isotopes takes a lot more energy than sorting chemicals
Lazare 6y ago
> As long as the extrapolations for nuclear are prone to extreme outcomes The extrapolations for coal are prone to very extreme outcomes, believe me. :-) > nuclear is more unpredictable Citation needed, I think. The impact of coal on the climate and human health is still an open question, and given the scale of its use, a small change in our estimation of impact yields very large changes down the line. I can see arguing that a "safety factor" should be baked into calculations based on how confident we are in the models. If you can say X +/- 50%, maybe we should just assume it's 2X, just to be safe (or whatever), but iff you can say X +/- 2%, X seems like a pretty good baseline. However, I think you greatly underestimate the uncertainty of fossil fuels , and greatly overestimate the uncertainty of the safety of nuclear power. I mean....how exactly would a nuclear power plant cause 50k deaths? Or irradiate New York City? Obviously no nuclear power plants (or any other...) are being built in the middle of Manhattan.
- strulovich 6y ago
  But in the middle, but there closest nuclear plant to Manhattan is 40 miles away. And that’s in a world where everyone avoids nuclear plants like the plague.

DoctorOetker 6y ago

the price of protecting many small nuclear reactors against say aeroplanes will rise per watt. I certainly agree with death per TWh calculations being naive, but for a different reason: ethics trumps metrics. If I agree to climb a roof and maintain some solar panels in exchange for money, I am risking my own life and limb. A child 100 years from now will not fall off in my place. If you agree to work in a nuclear reactor today, in theory a child in the future could get cancer from a mishap today. Put differently: even if eating 20 grams of human babies cured AIDS, and hence many lives could be saved in exchange for one, does not justify the trade. We expect informed consent of all parties involved.

nobodyandproud 6y ago
How do you quantify the life and healthcost of the mining, “recycling”, and disposal of the PV and the battery? PV and batteries are expected to last only three decades or a decade+, respectively. Unlike a centralized power source, decentralized power has all of the downsides that we have today with consumer garbage. Disposal is left to the consumer, which means it’s just going into landfills. Ethics is a strawman.
- DoctorOetker 6y ago
  As long as the mining activity was by informed consent, i.e. no slavery explicit nor implicit, any life and healthcost of mining, recycling and disposal is incurred with informed consent...
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    The effects of mining and disposal don’t disappear after one generation, and solar and wind is not a solution that works for all climates and regions. The multi-generational ethical problems you’ve constructed apply to oil; gas; solar; windmills; nuclear. To put it another way: There is no free lunch, but some sources like gas and oil must be reduced. Of that there is no doubt. The unethical choice is to outright disregard other proven solutions because of unfounded fear and doubt, and leave an irreversible disaster for the next generation.
    - DoctorOetker 6y ago
      sorting isotopes takes a lot more energy than sorting chemicals

Lazare 6y ago

> As long as the extrapolations for nuclear are prone to extreme outcomes The extrapolations for coal are prone to very extreme outcomes, believe me. :-) > nuclear is more unpredictable Citation needed, I think. The impact of coal on the climate and human health is still an open question, and given the scale of its use, a small change in our estimation of impact yields very large changes down the line. I can see arguing that a "safety factor" should be baked into calculations based on how confident we are in the models. If you can say X +/- 50%, maybe we should just assume it's 2X, just to be safe (or whatever), but iff you can say X +/- 2%, X seems like a pretty good baseline. However, I think you greatly underestimate the uncertainty of fossil fuels , and greatly overestimate the uncertainty of the safety of nuclear power. I mean....how exactly would a nuclear power plant cause 50k deaths? Or irradiate New York City? Obviously no nuclear power plants (or any other...) are being built in the middle of Manhattan.

strulovich 6y ago
But in the middle, but there closest nuclear plant to Manhattan is 40 miles away. And that’s in a world where everyone avoids nuclear plants like the plague.