5 ms·

The "safest and cleanest" chart is VERY misleading when in comes to nuclear. It completely ignores the LONG-TERM risk for human survival: catastrophic release

The "safest and cleanest" chart is VERY misleading when in comes to nuclear. It completely ignores the LONG-TERM risk for human survival: catastrophic release of large quantities of active fuel or waste (due to events like war, terrorism, natural disasters).

rini17 6y ago
Big disasters too happen with fossils and hydro.
- throwaway12319 6y ago
  If there was a systemic risk that all dams in the world magically collapse at the same time then it should be included in the comparison. Not accounting for all types of risks makes for a very skewed comparison.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Hydro plant failures have ocurred, and are far and away the most lethal energy-related accidents to date, true. The worst power plant accident of time, not a nuclear power plant failure, but a hydro station in China, Banqiao Dam. It's instructive several ways. Any number of fairly simple methods would have hugely alleviated the impact of the disaster. Much as with major nuclear disasters, it was a cascade of failures, starting with poor management and a dysfunctional culture, amplified through poor design, adverse conditions, poor communications, delayed or absent warnings, and little or no disaster response (many of the deaths were attributed to starvation and disease, not drowning or other physical impacts). A useful thing to keep in mind, though, is that after a dam break is done being a a massive disaster area, which typically resolves in a few hours to a few weeks, the land is no longer a glowing radioactive mess. It can be re-settled and populated as structures and infrasctructure are rebuilt. Zhumadian City, the region surrounding Banqiao, has a present population of over 7 million. Hydro disasters have been large, but are tangible/sensible, immediate, and resolve relatively quickly. 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, with at least three highly notable failures. The immediate innundation from Banqiao was responsible for ~25k deaths. The additional 100k or so came from starvation and disease due to widespread disruption of the region, and a grossly inadequate disaster response plan and capability. Adequate engineering, operation, management, forecasting, disaster planning, preparation, and response, could have reduced the loss still further. Organisational / institutional failures at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and for that matter, Hanford and Sellafield, were and are massive contributing factors. These cannot be engineered around.
  - rini17 6y ago
    I thought you try to adhere to facts, till I got to "the land is a glowing radioactive mess" thing. If you say so, please too mention the land which is poisonous carcinogenic mess because of coal sludge leaks, tar sand mining and fracking byproducts, heavy metals and pesticides which tend to concentrate in hydropower reservoirs, etc.etc. And some of these actually have longer half-life than nuclear leaks.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      I'm not discussing or comparing fossil fuels, but rather renewables, and specifically hydro, with nuclear. Coal sludge, tar sands mining, and fracking have nothing to do with hydropower generation. Those are the activities renewable energy alternatives are specifically intended to replace, and as such, they address any related concerns directly. I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accumulations in hydro projects due to the hydro project itself. "Cancer alleys" along major riverways due to other streamside and watershed activities (e.g., the lower Mississippi river & delta region) are prevalent without any accompanying hydroelectric facilities. Hydro isn't the cause. This seems to be a shifting of the argument on your part.
      - rini17 6y ago
        It is, sadly, not in widespread public awareness. But some research is there, such as [1] [2]. If a hydropower dam has been built today on lower Mississippi it would over time fill with a cubic-mile-worth of toxic sediment on the top of currently existing problems. This is not an exaggeration, an additional superfund site with a volume measured in cubic miles, due solely to the hydro project itself I don't see how else can it be construed. [1]https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-reservoirs-a-long-term-problem-of-immediate-concern/ https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-rese... [2]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y
        dredmorbius 6y ago
ralfd 6y ago
Surely this theoretical risk of that is dwarved by the concrete risk of climate change.
- throwaway12319 6y ago
  No doubt, but this is entirely besides the point. My point is still valid.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    Beside, not besides.
    - throwaway12319 6y ago
      TIL, thanks!

rini17 6y ago

Big disasters too happen with fossils and hydro.

throwaway12319 6y ago
If there was a systemic risk that all dams in the world magically collapse at the same time then it should be included in the comparison. Not accounting for all types of risks makes for a very skewed comparison.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Hydro plant failures have ocurred, and are far and away the most lethal energy-related accidents to date, true. The worst power plant accident of time, not a nuclear power plant failure, but a hydro station in China, Banqiao Dam. It's instructive several ways. Any number of fairly simple methods would have hugely alleviated the impact of the disaster. Much as with major nuclear disasters, it was a cascade of failures, starting with poor management and a dysfunctional culture, amplified through poor design, adverse conditions, poor communications, delayed or absent warnings, and little or no disaster response (many of the deaths were attributed to starvation and disease, not drowning or other physical impacts). A useful thing to keep in mind, though, is that after a dam break is done being a a massive disaster area, which typically resolves in a few hours to a few weeks, the land is no longer a glowing radioactive mess. It can be re-settled and populated as structures and infrasctructure are rebuilt. Zhumadian City, the region surrounding Banqiao, has a present population of over 7 million. Hydro disasters have been large, but are tangible/sensible, immediate, and resolve relatively quickly. 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, with at least three highly notable failures. The immediate innundation from Banqiao was responsible for ~25k deaths. The additional 100k or so came from starvation and disease due to widespread disruption of the region, and a grossly inadequate disaster response plan and capability. Adequate engineering, operation, management, forecasting, disaster planning, preparation, and response, could have reduced the loss still further. Organisational / institutional failures at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and for that matter, Hanford and Sellafield, were and are massive contributing factors. These cannot be engineered around.
- rini17 6y ago
  I thought you try to adhere to facts, till I got to "the land is a glowing radioactive mess" thing. If you say so, please too mention the land which is poisonous carcinogenic mess because of coal sludge leaks, tar sand mining and fracking byproducts, heavy metals and pesticides which tend to concentrate in hydropower reservoirs, etc.etc. And some of these actually have longer half-life than nuclear leaks.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    I'm not discussing or comparing fossil fuels, but rather renewables, and specifically hydro, with nuclear. Coal sludge, tar sands mining, and fracking have nothing to do with hydropower generation. Those are the activities renewable energy alternatives are specifically intended to replace, and as such, they address any related concerns directly. I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accumulations in hydro projects due to the hydro project itself. "Cancer alleys" along major riverways due to other streamside and watershed activities (e.g., the lower Mississippi river & delta region) are prevalent without any accompanying hydroelectric facilities. Hydro isn't the cause. This seems to be a shifting of the argument on your part.
    - rini17 6y ago
      It is, sadly, not in widespread public awareness. But some research is there, such as [1] [2]. If a hydropower dam has been built today on lower Mississippi it would over time fill with a cubic-mile-worth of toxic sediment on the top of currently existing problems. This is not an exaggeration, an additional superfund site with a volume measured in cubic miles, due solely to the hydro project itself I don't see how else can it be construed. [1]https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-reservoirs-a-long-term-problem-of-immediate-concern/ https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-rese... [2]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y
      - dredmorbius 6y ago

ralfd 6y ago

Surely this theoretical risk of that is dwarved by the concrete risk of climate change.

throwaway12319 6y ago
No doubt, but this is entirely besides the point. My point is still valid.
- beervirus 6y ago
  Beside, not besides.
  - throwaway12319 6y ago
    TIL, thanks!