6 ms·

Sure it's a bad thing, but how can anyone possibly rationalize away the fact that coal plants kill more people than nuclear plants per kilowatt hour produced?

• rbanffy 15y ago
  > coal plants kill more people than nuclear plants per kilowatt hour produced Not to be picky, but we are seeing some of the first aging nuclear facilities being operated beyond their designed lifetime by people who don't deserve to be qualified as competent. Coal has killed more people than nuclear, but it certainly seems nuclear power operators are well prepared to close that gap. :-/ I worry about future failures as those reactors grow old. Having said that, it would be much wiser to build more modern, resilient, nuclear power plants than the equivalent capacity in coal.
  • tjogin 15y ago
    Well, why do reactors grow old to begin with? Because nuclear isn't an area where funding for research is pouring in. Had we not pulled the nuclear handbreak, we wouldn't be stuck with aging reactors in the first place. Now that we have them though, why can't we just shut them down? Because of the energy deficit that would create since we're still pulling on the nuclear handbreak.
    • rbanffy 15y ago
      You've got a point, but we still need to use these reactors while we build more modern, safer ones to replace them. It won't be pretty.
      • deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
  • extension 15y ago
    Not likely, as the gap is about 4000x http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
    • rbanffy 15y ago
      You underestimate the power of a good couple INES-7 incidents.
      • tjogin 15y ago
        I think you underestimate the power of coal plant incidents and hydropower incidents. They're no joke. Chernobyl, an INES-7 killed 56 people. Plus another 4000 from radiation. As previously linked, check these out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease The Great Smog of London killed twelve million people. Banqiao Dam killed 171 000 and destroyed homes for another eleven million people.
        • rbanffy 15y ago
          Minamata and Bhopal were chemical plants, not power generation plants. Dam failures are always ugly, but they are rather predictable and preventable. And the Great Smog of London killed more people than Chernobyl but was caused by low-grade coal burning in low-tech furnaces. Even if we buy the suspicious number of 12 million, it's not a coal power plant accident. Don't get me wrong. I like nuclear. I just know it's dangerous and the consequences of one accident can be pretty scary and long lasting.
          • deleted 15y ago
            [deleted]
        • extension 15y ago
• Duff 15y ago
  Where did you find statistics on deaths attributable to waste stored in holding ponds over the next few centuries? How did you roll that figure into the per-kilowatt death rate?
  • enko 15y ago
    He didn't do either, of course, because those "statistics" would be pure speculation. Let's stick to the current facts please. When someone dies from exposure to one of these "holding ponds" then we can update the model.
    • Duff 15y ago
      Note that I'm not arguing in favor of coal by any stretch of the imagination. But, you can accurately quantify the risks of coal using current facts, because the direct effects of coal power are measurable. When you stop using coal, the effects start to go away. Even with rooftop solar, you can measure the risks of maintenance personnel falling off of roofs and production accidents. Again, current risks that can be measured and evaluated. If you take the panel off of your roof, there is zero risk of someone dying as a result of your panel. In the year 2200, I can say conclusively that no human will be injured as a result of the solar panel on my roof. Nuclear is different, because while the operating lifetime of the plant is dozens of years, it leaves behind waste products which introduce life-threatening risks for hundreds or thousands of years. Nobody on earth has a viable long-term strategy for managing waste products today, nor an ETA for when that strategy will be devised and implemented. That doesn't mean that nuclear energy is evil or otherwise morally reprehensible -- it is not. But ignoring obvious long term risks by narrowing the scope of what you consider a risk to be is not an apples to apples comparison.
      • jpk 15y ago
        There are, in fact, perfectly good methods for permanently disposing of nuclear waste, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that the waste material be retrievable for a certain period after emplacement. So we have to get rid of it... but keep it close. Therein lies most of the long-term safety issues with storing/disposing of it.