4 ms·

Much safer than constant slow poisoning from coal plants. Number of people that died from Fukushima (which is an older, much worse design) can be counted on han

by zekica 6y ago

Much safer than constant slow poisoning from coal plants. Number of people that died from Fukushima (which is an older, much worse design) can be counted on hand.

user568439 6y ago
False dilemma. I didn’t say that the alternative should be coal.
- profile53 6y ago
  It’s not a false dilemma when it is in fact a real forced choice. Many people live next to power plants and that’s unavoidable in the world we live in. The question then becomes which type of power plant you’d rather live close to? Wind, solar, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, or nuclear? I’d choose nuclear for sure because it is the least risky option in my assessment.
- therufa 6y ago
  Not necessarily. Energy sources we consider as green nowadays have an immense toll on our environment which is massively understated. Take solar panels for example. They are supposed to produce energy without CO2 emissions, which is explicitly true, but implicitly they produce just as much CO2 as coal. The production of these panels isn't as sexy as it seems. Also they tend to degrade after a few decades and lose efficiency exponentially. There are many other electricity generating solutions which have similar problems. It's sad, but the least polluting source would be to go nuclear. I believe you and many others would change their mind after a little digging into the topic. I was rather sceptical in the beginning as well, but due to facts I had t o change my mind.
- orwin 6y ago
  Who you rather live near a coal plant, a nuclear plant, under a Dam, near a copper/neodymium mine or near a cadmium mine? Would you rather eat vegetables and meat/fish that grew downstream a nuclear plant/uranium mine or those that grew downstream a cadmium mine? Because I'm sure I would rather live near an old uranium mine (well, I do.)
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    IN a dam! In a stylish bond lair ;->
- undefined1 6y ago
  it ends up being the alternative in practice. just look at Germany and Japan who spun up more coal plants to replace nuclear.
throwawaysea 6y ago
What’s the math on that exactly? How many years of life did those affected lose? And is it just the coal miners or others? I would imagine modern coal mining has PPE to keep the miners safe. Plus the availability of abundant cheap coal energy may have saved lives from what it enabled (like keeping the lights on at hospitals, powering our water pumps, whatever).
- orwin 6y ago
  It's others. The fog still kills in China.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  PPEs are impractial for (deep) coal mining because of the temperatures down there. Be it geothermal, or heat from the machines. Just look at the whiners against masks now, and now imagine having to do that at 40°C while working hard.

by zekica 6y ago

Much safer than constant slow poisoning from coal plants. Number of people that died from Fukushima (which is an older, much worse design) can be counted on hand.

user568439 6y ago

False dilemma. I didn’t say that the alternative should be coal.

profile53 6y ago
It’s not a false dilemma when it is in fact a real forced choice. Many people live next to power plants and that’s unavoidable in the world we live in. The question then becomes which type of power plant you’d rather live close to? Wind, solar, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, or nuclear? I’d choose nuclear for sure because it is the least risky option in my assessment.
therufa 6y ago
Not necessarily. Energy sources we consider as green nowadays have an immense toll on our environment which is massively understated. Take solar panels for example. They are supposed to produce energy without CO2 emissions, which is explicitly true, but implicitly they produce just as much CO2 as coal. The production of these panels isn't as sexy as it seems. Also they tend to degrade after a few decades and lose efficiency exponentially. There are many other electricity generating solutions which have similar problems. It's sad, but the least polluting source would be to go nuclear. I believe you and many others would change their mind after a little digging into the topic. I was rather sceptical in the beginning as well, but due to facts I had t o change my mind.
orwin 6y ago
Who you rather live near a coal plant, a nuclear plant, under a Dam, near a copper/neodymium mine or near a cadmium mine? Would you rather eat vegetables and meat/fish that grew downstream a nuclear plant/uranium mine or those that grew downstream a cadmium mine? Because I'm sure I would rather live near an old uranium mine (well, I do.)
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  IN a dam! In a stylish bond lair ;->
undefined1 6y ago
it ends up being the alternative in practice. just look at Germany and Japan who spun up more coal plants to replace nuclear.

throwawaysea 6y ago

What’s the math on that exactly? How many years of life did those affected lose? And is it just the coal miners or others? I would imagine modern coal mining has PPE to keep the miners safe. Plus the availability of abundant cheap coal energy may have saved lives from what it enabled (like keeping the lights on at hospitals, powering our water pumps, whatever).

orwin 6y ago
It's others. The fog still kills in China.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
PPEs are impractial for (deep) coal mining because of the temperatures down there. Be it geothermal, or heat from the machines. Just look at the whiners against masks now, and now imagine having to do that at 40°C while working hard.