3 ms·

I disagree, nuclear power is hugely beneficial. I am very sure global temperature would be past the tipping point for many years now if we didn't use it. Consid

I disagree, nuclear power is hugely beneficial. I am very sure global temperature would be past the tipping point for many years now if we didn't use it. Consider all the military vessels powered by nuclear energy that would use fossil fuels instead; and of course a huge percentage of global energy mix is nuclear, that would be coal if we couldn't use nuclear.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Sure, that's why I said it had huge negatives instead of saying that it was (all) negative. But nuclear weapons are definitely a huge negative.
- emteycz 6y ago
  I guess I was thinking in terms of 1D plus to minus line, I understand now. However, isn't almost everything like that? Even computers are used for evil.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Hmm. Well, I kind of meant as a 1D plus to minus line, with nuclear being having the extreme negative but also the upside. But I guess, when you put it like that, the transistor has some significant downsides, too. A bit of a digression: Has anyone done the calculation to see whether nuclear has on net saved lives or cost them? You have the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and nuclear accidents. But on the other hand, you have nuclear power replacing (primarily) coal, and pollution from that kills, too. (I'm not even talking about CO2, just the rest of the pollution.) So, was nuclear a net win or a net killer? Does anyone know?
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Pollution is extremely deadly if you don't count only deaths, but also shortening of lifespan and healthspan. Less power generated per person working in energy industry also significantly tanks productivity of a society as a whole (consider coalminers [and the casualties] part of that). There are these interesting pages: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... So around 300k casualties of war. Consider that if nuclear bombing wasn't a possibility, we would certainly try to develop another technology capable of that level of destruction. Who knows for how long would the second world war stretch out if nuclear bombing wasn't a possibility; maybe there would be more significant global wars in that alternative timeline.
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      > So, was nuclear a net win or a net killer? Does anyone know? I guess it depends whether nuclear weapons kill everyone or not. That will overbalance all other factors somewhat. But in any possible conversation, that didn't happen yet, so that possibility can be ignored I guess...

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Sure, that's why I said it had huge negatives instead of saying that it was (all) negative. But nuclear weapons are definitely a huge negative.

emteycz 6y ago
I guess I was thinking in terms of 1D plus to minus line, I understand now. However, isn't almost everything like that? Even computers are used for evil.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Hmm. Well, I kind of meant as a 1D plus to minus line, with nuclear being having the extreme negative but also the upside. But I guess, when you put it like that, the transistor has some significant downsides, too. A bit of a digression: Has anyone done the calculation to see whether nuclear has on net saved lives or cost them? You have the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and nuclear accidents. But on the other hand, you have nuclear power replacing (primarily) coal, and pollution from that kills, too. (I'm not even talking about CO2, just the rest of the pollution.) So, was nuclear a net win or a net killer? Does anyone know?
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Pollution is extremely deadly if you don't count only deaths, but also shortening of lifespan and healthspan. Less power generated per person working in energy industry also significantly tanks productivity of a society as a whole (consider coalminers [and the casualties] part of that). There are these interesting pages: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... So around 300k casualties of war. Consider that if nuclear bombing wasn't a possibility, we would certainly try to develop another technology capable of that level of destruction. Who knows for how long would the second world war stretch out if nuclear bombing wasn't a possibility; maybe there would be more significant global wars in that alternative timeline.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    > So, was nuclear a net win or a net killer? Does anyone know? I guess it depends whether nuclear weapons kill everyone or not. That will overbalance all other factors somewhat. But in any possible conversation, that didn't happen yet, so that possibility can be ignored I guess...