8 ms·

The key thing to remember is that power sources like coal and other fossil fuels have a very real health cost. A large number of people die every year. However

The key thing to remember is that power sources like coal and other fossil fuels have a very real health cost. A large number of people die every year. However a nuclear accident is much more "exciting" news and sticks in people's mind. People dying of cancer, asthma and other conditions are not as direct or as dramatic.

michaelbarton 6y ago
Did a control-F for "kurzgesagt" and saw that it had not been mentioned yet. I really recommend watching this short video which gives a really excellent overview of the dangers of nuclear power in the context of the alternatives. The TLDW is even if a very pessimistic estimate of the dangers of nuclear power is still much better than a very optimistic take on the dangers of fossil fuels once you combine the effects of air pollution and climate change. That includes both Chernobyl and Fukushima. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM
jillesvangurp 6y ago
True, however, solar and wind are proving to be the killer technology in the sense that they are forcing coal plants to actually go extinct at a rapid pace. They are being forced out of the market based on cost. Nuclear never had that power of persuasion because it was too expensive. That's why we have so many coal plants. Nuclear is part of the problem, not the solution. To be part of the solution it will have to be vastly cheaper than it is today. Probably by at least one or two orders of magnitude. That's an interesting research problem to work on the next decades. By the time that happens or not, there won't be any coal plants remaining and most gas will be on the way out as well (considering that is already barely competitive today).
- floatboth 6y ago
  Nuclear is upfront expensive, but the incredible efficiency wins hugely long term, AFAIK?
  - bronson 6y ago
    Nuclear operating cost is comparable to offshore wind, coal, and combined cycle gas, and around 4X more expensive to operate than onshore wind or solar. (Of course, coal and gas would be more expensive if they had to pay a fair price for their emissions) Nuclear is also eye-poppingly expensive to decommission. Finally, note that operating cost doesn't include the sort of re-engineering and upgrades that are routinely required, and have doomed plants like San Onofre.
    - sir_bearington 6y ago
      Most levelized energy costs do include cost of decommissioning and maintenance. On the other hand, estimates of wind and solar do not include the cost of storage to actually make intermittent sources viable. Which is understandable, because there's really no plan to provision this much storage without a massive breakthrough in storage solutions. Almost all plans for a predominantly wind and solar grid assume that something like hydrogen, synthetic natural gas, or something else will provide massive amounts of cheap storage. Until then, it's fossil fuels to fulfill off-peak demand.
      - mjevans 6y ago
        Modern nuclear plants (with 50+ years of safety lessons) for baseload and a mix of other sources (wind, solar, etc) sounds ideal.
        sir_bearington 6y ago
        Peak energy consumption happens in the evening, when solar isn't producing any energy. And nuclear costs just as much to run at partial capacity as it does to run a full capacity. So if you build enough nuclear plants to support the grid when solar and wind isn't producing, then there's no reason to build any solar and wind. Nuclear makes the intermittent sources redundant.
        bob29 6y ago
- fallingknife 6y ago
  At this point it's gas plants that are forcing coal out of business. Solar/wind don't compete well with coal without extensive storage infrastructure that doesn't exist yet.
_nalply 6y ago
It's not coal vs nuclear. Both need to be shut down.
- kalessin 6y ago
  That's not the case at all, nuclear should be how we replace coal. Nuclear is one of the safest way to produce energy today, including the Chernobyl & Fukushima incidents. Nuclear, because of its energy density, has a big edge against solar and wind as well. AFAIK, building NPPs not only uses less resources and land footprint than wind and solar, they also last longer and are non-intermittent. In this graph, notice how safe Nuclear is, and also notice that it is cleaner than wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  - godelski 6y ago
    > That's not the case at all, nuclear should be how we replace coal. I'm going to nit pick > nuclear should be part of how we replace coal. There's no energy source that is a "one size fits all." Renewables and storage will better replace coal in some areas and nuclear will better in others. The point is that nuclear is not off the table and that experts can use said tool. It is about not tying peoples' hands behind their backs.
- bsder 6y ago
  Then perhaps we should start funding fusion research above the "fusion never" levels? Honestly, had we put the stupid amounts of money that we subsidize fossil fuels with (think about how much government funding went into the specialized drilling that became fracking) into fusion research, we'd likely have it by now.
  - kalessin 6y ago
    Fusion is multiple decades ahead of us still, even with more funding, but we need to take action this decade if we want to have an impact on global warming. Fusion is unfortunately not going to help here.
  - 6y ago
godelski 6y ago
This is largely due to the abstract nature of fossil fuel deaths. With the exception of an oil spill these take place over large areas and over longer periods of time. Whereas nuclear accidents are localized both geographically and temporally, even if their death rates (or even death per energy rate) is magnitudes below that of other sources. What I think needs to happen is that these technologies need to be put on even playing fields. Nuclear has most of its costs built in: decommissioning, health, storage, etc. But a carbon tax and environmental health tax would largely put technologies on at least an even playing ground. These issues are essentially a tragedy of the commons issue, where we share resources. There's an economic cost to polluting a lake and if that is not built in to the market then it isn't fair or helpful to the population. We can argue about free markets and stuff, but this makes it more free as certain sectors can't skirt by this and it is unreasonable to expect the population to be well informed (nobody can be an expert in nuclear physics, coal, oil, solar, electrodynamics, mechanical engineering, hydrology, etc, the burden is too high). A major problem is that many sectors are getting major discounts because their costs are much harder to see. It isn't only "first order" costs that matter, especially when second and third order are so expensive (i.e. climate and health). I'm not saying we should reduce scrutiny of nuclear, but rather that the other technologies deserve the same level.
dirkt 6y ago
> A large number of people die every year. This keeps beeing peddled by the pro-nuclear fraction, but you are comparing apples and oranges: the "large number of people die" is based on "if you burn coal without any filters, in particular if you do it in a little hut in a third world country with no proper chimney, it's really really bad for your health". Nuclear power plants require modern technology for high safety standards. Coal power plants on anything than a very basic technology level all have filters that scrub the sulphur etc. Outside of third world countries, nobody dies from coal. It's not even a health problem. The problem with coal and other fossil fuels is that they use up limited resources, and they put back the CO2 into the atmosphere that has been extracted by plans over millions of years, causing global warming. The problem with nuclear is that when it goes boom (and it has done so about once every 20 years since we have nuclear), it leaves a large area inhabitable for a long time. Which is a big problem in a densely populated country like mine. Also, at least in my country, even though we are using nuclear for about 60 years now, nobody has figured out a safe way to store the nuclear waste - it just gets moved around from one failed attempt to the next. The "lots of people die from coal" vs. "nobody dies from nuclear" story (which are both distortions, conveniently in different directions to match the ideology of those bringing it up) is a red herring.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  > Nuclear power plants require modern technology for high safety standards. There a thing I note about maintaining a solar plant, you can trust couple of rednecks in a F150 pickup truck to do what's needed.
- schimmy_changa 6y ago
  "Outside of third world countries, nobody dies from coal. It's not even a health problem." is not true, see this DOE report: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Environment%20Baseline%20Vol.%202--Environmental%20Quality%20and%20the%20U.S.%20Power%20Sector--Air%20Quality%2C%20Water%20Quality%2C%20Land%20Use%2C%20and%20Environmental%20Justice.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Environm... This adds about 25 points to the AQI if you live in the red zone, data is from 2016. Even if it doesn't kill you through cardiac effects, how much asthma and QALYs are you losing from that?

michaelbarton 6y ago

Did a control-F for "kurzgesagt" and saw that it had not been mentioned yet. I really recommend watching this short video which gives a really excellent overview of the dangers of nuclear power in the context of the alternatives. The TLDW is even if a very pessimistic estimate of the dangers of nuclear power is still much better than a very optimistic take on the dangers of fossil fuels once you combine the effects of air pollution and climate change. That includes both Chernobyl and Fukushima. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM

jillesvangurp 6y ago

True, however, solar and wind are proving to be the killer technology in the sense that they are forcing coal plants to actually go extinct at a rapid pace. They are being forced out of the market based on cost. Nuclear never had that power of persuasion because it was too expensive. That's why we have so many coal plants. Nuclear is part of the problem, not the solution. To be part of the solution it will have to be vastly cheaper than it is today. Probably by at least one or two orders of magnitude. That's an interesting research problem to work on the next decades. By the time that happens or not, there won't be any coal plants remaining and most gas will be on the way out as well (considering that is already barely competitive today).

floatboth 6y ago
Nuclear is upfront expensive, but the incredible efficiency wins hugely long term, AFAIK?
- bronson 6y ago
  Nuclear operating cost is comparable to offshore wind, coal, and combined cycle gas, and around 4X more expensive to operate than onshore wind or solar. (Of course, coal and gas would be more expensive if they had to pay a fair price for their emissions) Nuclear is also eye-poppingly expensive to decommission. Finally, note that operating cost doesn't include the sort of re-engineering and upgrades that are routinely required, and have doomed plants like San Onofre.
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    Most levelized energy costs do include cost of decommissioning and maintenance. On the other hand, estimates of wind and solar do not include the cost of storage to actually make intermittent sources viable. Which is understandable, because there's really no plan to provision this much storage without a massive breakthrough in storage solutions. Almost all plans for a predominantly wind and solar grid assume that something like hydrogen, synthetic natural gas, or something else will provide massive amounts of cheap storage. Until then, it's fossil fuels to fulfill off-peak demand.
    - mjevans 6y ago
      Modern nuclear plants (with 50+ years of safety lessons) for baseload and a mix of other sources (wind, solar, etc) sounds ideal.
      - sir_bearington 6y ago
        Peak energy consumption happens in the evening, when solar isn't producing any energy. And nuclear costs just as much to run at partial capacity as it does to run a full capacity. So if you build enough nuclear plants to support the grid when solar and wind isn't producing, then there's no reason to build any solar and wind. Nuclear makes the intermittent sources redundant.
        bob29 6y ago
fallingknife 6y ago
At this point it's gas plants that are forcing coal out of business. Solar/wind don't compete well with coal without extensive storage infrastructure that doesn't exist yet.

_nalply 6y ago

It's not coal vs nuclear. Both need to be shut down.

kalessin 6y ago
That's not the case at all, nuclear should be how we replace coal. Nuclear is one of the safest way to produce energy today, including the Chernobyl & Fukushima incidents. Nuclear, because of its energy density, has a big edge against solar and wind as well. AFAIK, building NPPs not only uses less resources and land footprint than wind and solar, they also last longer and are non-intermittent. In this graph, notice how safe Nuclear is, and also notice that it is cleaner than wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- godelski 6y ago
  > That's not the case at all, nuclear should be how we replace coal. I'm going to nit pick > nuclear should be part of how we replace coal. There's no energy source that is a "one size fits all." Renewables and storage will better replace coal in some areas and nuclear will better in others. The point is that nuclear is not off the table and that experts can use said tool. It is about not tying peoples' hands behind their backs.
bsder 6y ago
Then perhaps we should start funding fusion research above the "fusion never" levels? Honestly, had we put the stupid amounts of money that we subsidize fossil fuels with (think about how much government funding went into the specialized drilling that became fracking) into fusion research, we'd likely have it by now.
- kalessin 6y ago
  Fusion is multiple decades ahead of us still, even with more funding, but we need to take action this decade if we want to have an impact on global warming. Fusion is unfortunately not going to help here.
- 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

This is largely due to the abstract nature of fossil fuel deaths. With the exception of an oil spill these take place over large areas and over longer periods of time. Whereas nuclear accidents are localized both geographically and temporally, even if their death rates (or even death per energy rate) is magnitudes below that of other sources. What I think needs to happen is that these technologies need to be put on even playing fields. Nuclear has most of its costs built in: decommissioning, health, storage, etc. But a carbon tax and environmental health tax would largely put technologies on at least an even playing ground. These issues are essentially a tragedy of the commons issue, where we share resources. There's an economic cost to polluting a lake and if that is not built in to the market then it isn't fair or helpful to the population. We can argue about free markets and stuff, but this makes it more free as certain sectors can't skirt by this and it is unreasonable to expect the population to be well informed (nobody can be an expert in nuclear physics, coal, oil, solar, electrodynamics, mechanical engineering, hydrology, etc, the burden is too high). A major problem is that many sectors are getting major discounts because their costs are much harder to see. It isn't only "first order" costs that matter, especially when second and third order are so expensive (i.e. climate and health). I'm not saying we should reduce scrutiny of nuclear, but rather that the other technologies deserve the same level.

dirkt 6y ago

> A large number of people die every year. This keeps beeing peddled by the pro-nuclear fraction, but you are comparing apples and oranges: the "large number of people die" is based on "if you burn coal without any filters, in particular if you do it in a little hut in a third world country with no proper chimney, it's really really bad for your health". Nuclear power plants require modern technology for high safety standards. Coal power plants on anything than a very basic technology level all have filters that scrub the sulphur etc. Outside of third world countries, nobody dies from coal. It's not even a health problem. The problem with coal and other fossil fuels is that they use up limited resources, and they put back the CO2 into the atmosphere that has been extracted by plans over millions of years, causing global warming. The problem with nuclear is that when it goes boom (and it has done so about once every 20 years since we have nuclear), it leaves a large area inhabitable for a long time. Which is a big problem in a densely populated country like mine. Also, at least in my country, even though we are using nuclear for about 60 years now, nobody has figured out a safe way to store the nuclear waste - it just gets moved around from one failed attempt to the next. The "lots of people die from coal" vs. "nobody dies from nuclear" story (which are both distortions, conveniently in different directions to match the ideology of those bringing it up) is a red herring.

Gibbon1 6y ago
> Nuclear power plants require modern technology for high safety standards. There a thing I note about maintaining a solar plant, you can trust couple of rednecks in a F150 pickup truck to do what's needed.
schimmy_changa 6y ago
"Outside of third world countries, nobody dies from coal. It's not even a health problem." is not true, see this DOE report: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Environment%20Baseline%20Vol.%202--Environmental%20Quality%20and%20the%20U.S.%20Power%20Sector--Air%20Quality%2C%20Water%20Quality%2C%20Land%20Use%2C%20and%20Environmental%20Justice.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Environm... This adds about 25 points to the AQI if you live in the red zone, data is from 2016. Even if it doesn't kill you through cardiac effects, how much asthma and QALYs are you losing from that?