5 ms·
I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on
by sukuriant 15y ago
I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity.
Is nuclear power perfectly safe? No.
Is it safer than coal?
- elithrar 15y ago> I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Precisely. It's also crisis like Fukushima—using generations-older tech—that impedes development of safer nuclear generation technology (i.e thorium reactors, or even just better light-water reactors). > I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Perhaps I should have used stronger language. The situation is bad, most definitely, and Japan will be reeling from the effects for decades to come. Especially in the immediate area, and more depending on the extent of ground water contamination. I'm just saying that the lack of education about nuclear power prevents us from moving forward with it, when deaths or disasters linked with other forms of power generation don't get the same media attention.
- blackRust 15y ago"Is it safer than coal?" You have to compare casualties by number of people involved in both industries and also compensate for tight regulation. My counter-question: How safe would coal be if it had the same kind of regulations as nuclear power?
- sukuriant 15y agoThat is an incredibly question. And I honestly have no idea. I would be interested in a more knowledgable person's thoughts on the matter. If it's you, by all means, please share :) If it's someone else, also please share!
- icarus_drowning 15y agoThe real question you should be asking is how economical coal would be if it had the same kind of regulations as nuclear power.
- jsz0 15y agoThe analogy I've been using is air travel. Everyone knows the risks but we continue to fly anyway because planes just don't crash that often. Driving down the highway, which feels safer, is statistically far more dangerous.
- afterburner 15y agoIs coal the only other option? No.
- beefman 15y agoActually there is no other option. Fission is the only technology that can support present rates of global development for the foreseeable future.
- afterburner 15y agoNope.
- beefman 15y agoActually, yep. It will require on the order of 100TW by 2100. http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Projects/Economics.html http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Projects/Economics.html http://www.quora.com/Is-thorium-a-viable-replacement-for-uranium-in-the-US-any-time-soon/answer/Carl-Lumma http://www.quora.com/Is-thorium-a-viable-replacement-for-ura...
- afterburner 15y agoI'll give you a hint: renewable and power grid technology are not stuck at where they are now. But they will be if we don't invest in it. Which is less likely if we build lots of present-day fission stations.
- beefman 15y agoThanks for the hint! Here are three for you: * My statement, based on econophysics, remains true for perfect solar or wind collectors. * Stop using the term "renewable". It's antiphysical. * Learn something about fission - we can invest in it too, and there's a factor of 500 on the table.
- 15y ago