6 ms·

> 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 o

by 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?
godelski 6y ago
[0]> Estimates vary, but between 7,500 and 52,000 people in the United States meet early deaths because of small particles resulting from power plant emissions. That is the US. That is just air pollution. It is reasonable to conclude that there are other sources of pollution, such as water (which no matter how you cut it, air is in contact with). > it [goes boom] about once every 20 years This keeps beeing peddled by the anti-nuclear fraction, but you are comparing apples and oranges: the "large number of explosions" is based on "if you include 3 Mile Island and use bad statistics because now that number is 26 and ignore that we can't do this type of analysis will small sampling, and naively act like no progress has been made and that the probability isn't dependent on this". I mean seriously... 1st reactor: 1942, 3 Mile (not an explosion and isn't comparable to Chernobyl or Fukushima): 1979, Chernobyl: 1986, Fukushima: 2011. If we drop 3-Mile we get 40 years (39.5) btw. And you think no one is learning from this? That technology hasn't advanced in that time? This argument is ridiculous. It is bad faith. And I don't know how anyone can make this argument with a straight face. > The "lots of people die from coal" vs. "nobody dies from nuclear" story It is literally 39k Americans per year (mean of above) to 81[1] EVER (31 Chernobyl immediate, 50 Chernobyl after, 0 3 Mile Island, 0 Fukushima). You might want to retort about cancer and/or future deaths (which is still smaller than the lowest US YEARLY deaths), but we've already recognized that we're not doing that with coal either. If you get cancer from coal and survive you don't get counted, just like our nuclear numbers. There's better arguments to make but this one is just absurd and is trivial to prove so. [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-other-reason-... [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-kno... > According to the official, internationally recognized death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure. [2] Side note: the highest estimates use 60k for potential Chernobyl deaths, which is still 8 years at coal's best case scenario. Again, only counting the US for coal and world for nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...

by dirkt 6y ago

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?

godelski 6y ago

[0]> Estimates vary, but between 7,500 and 52,000 people in the United States meet early deaths because of small particles resulting from power plant emissions. That is the US. That is just air pollution. It is reasonable to conclude that there are other sources of pollution, such as water (which no matter how you cut it, air is in contact with). > it [goes boom] about once every 20 years This keeps beeing peddled by the anti-nuclear fraction, but you are comparing apples and oranges: the "large number of explosions" is based on "if you include 3 Mile Island and use bad statistics because now that number is 26 and ignore that we can't do this type of analysis will small sampling, and naively act like no progress has been made and that the probability isn't dependent on this". I mean seriously... 1st reactor: 1942, 3 Mile (not an explosion and isn't comparable to Chernobyl or Fukushima): 1979, Chernobyl: 1986, Fukushima: 2011. If we drop 3-Mile we get 40 years (39.5) btw. And you think no one is learning from this? That technology hasn't advanced in that time? This argument is ridiculous. It is bad faith. And I don't know how anyone can make this argument with a straight face. > The "lots of people die from coal" vs. "nobody dies from nuclear" story It is literally 39k Americans per year (mean of above) to 81[1] EVER (31 Chernobyl immediate, 50 Chernobyl after, 0 3 Mile Island, 0 Fukushima). You might want to retort about cancer and/or future deaths (which is still smaller than the lowest US YEARLY deaths), but we've already recognized that we're not doing that with coal either. If you get cancer from coal and survive you don't get counted, just like our nuclear numbers. There's better arguments to make but this one is just absurd and is trivial to prove so. [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-other-reason-... [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-kno... > According to the official, internationally recognized death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure. [2] Side note: the highest estimates use 60k for potential Chernobyl deaths, which is still 8 years at coal's best case scenario. Again, only counting the US for coal and world for nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...