7 ms·

You say the Chernobyl failure mode is "huge", but I would argue the opposite. If you compare the number of deaths across types of energy, nuclear is only slight

You say the Chernobyl failure mode is "huge", but I would argue the opposite. If you compare the number of deaths across types of energy, nuclear is only slightly higher than solar/wind (about 2x) but when compared to deaths due to fossil fuel it's effectively zero. The big picture must be kept in mind. The other thing to note is that nuclear reactor design has improved a lot since Chernobyl, so it's not honest to say that the probability of that incident occurring again hasn't declined substantially. You can also build the plant far away from cities and send the power via lines fairly efficiently, if you must reduce an extremely small risk to a zero risk situation.

borski 5y ago
I agree with you in general, but I think the massive failure mode is less about deaths and more about making large swaths of land in the world entirely uninhabitable by humans. I also agree the probability is way lower now, but the failure mode is huge nonetheless.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  In fear of making small area's of land uninhabitable by humans for a short period of time, we are making the entire planet uninhabitable by humans permanently.
  - borski 5y ago
    I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to very clearly state that the "worst" failure modes are not equivalent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- loeg 5y ago
  > I think the massive failure mode is less about deaths and more about making large swaths of land in the world entirely uninhabitable by humans. Are you talking about the land required by solar/wind generation? I wouldn't say it makes it uninhabitable by humans, but I wouldn't want to live under a big turbine.
  - borski 5y ago
    I'm talking about the failure mode of a nuclear plant exploding. Windmills and solar farms can be dismantled and moved. Nuclear plants, once a catastrophic failure happens, infect all the land around them for many miles and there is ~nothing you an do about it. See: Chernobyl. That said, this is extremely unlikely given everything we know now and how technology has progressed. But the 'uninhabitable wasteland' is the failure mode people are worried about.
- annexrichmond 5y ago
  don't have the numbers on hand, but if you compare energy output per acres, wind/solar farms are no competition to nuclear. I wonder what those numbers look like once you amortize those failure modes.
  - borski 5y ago
    This would be an interesting analysis - agreed!
- panick21 5y ago
  Many people live in the exclusion zone just fine. Their rates of cancer are not higher then anywhere else. Much of that area could be inhabited just fine. And again, that's like saying 'Early Zepplins destroyed to much stuff we can never use airplanes again' as if the reactors there are in any way comparable to modern reactors.
  - borski 5y ago
    This would be news to me! Sources please? I'd love to learn more about that. Also, your analogy doesn't hold; the failure mode of 'early zeppelins' or pretty much any other technology is very temporary. Nuclear fallout is very long. I agree technology has gotten better. To be clear, I think we should build more nuclear plants. But it is false to state that the failure modes of wind/solar and nuclear failures are ~equivalent.
    - panick21 5y ago
      Not that temporary for people who died. Actually look into modern GenIV reactors and try to come up with scenarios where a large numbers of people die. Its basically impossible. Maybe if you use multiple terrorists and multiple natural catastrophes in a coordinated you might get somewhere. Any practical failure mode would not leave the exclusion zone of the plant. And even those are incredibly unlikely. The thing is there is simply nothing that convince you otherwise. If you believe the only relevant argument is the very maximum damage possible no matter the circumstance then I lost the debate. The question to me is what is the practical danger and how many people would die if you powered a whole country of 300 million people with a technology. With GenIV nuclear plants you could power 300 million people for 100 years and the expect times you would have a Chernobyl style event would still be far below 1. The expect number of people to die would be far smaller then wind as well. If you include home solar, it would be less as well. Maybe centralized solar is comparable. Edit: You can lots of articles and reporting on them. Its mostly people who just never left. The area is depopulating as people die of old age and there is no migration to the area.
kelnos 5y ago
I think a more accurate comparison would be number of deaths per unit of electricity generated. Yes, in absolute numbers, there have been more deaths due to fossil fuel burning, but we've also generated a hell of a lot more electricity by burning fossil fuels then we have anything else. I suspect nuclear will still come out as being safer, but I think we should be a bit more rigorous with how we do comparisons.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  The data I was referring to is already normalized in that way: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy I don't believe an honest person can look at that chart and think nuclear safety is a a real problem, especially since the majority of those nuclear deaths were with old reactor designs. It seems like one of those misplaced, irrational fears like fear of flying.
  - Kon5ole 5y ago
    I believe you are making a logical mistake. The chart only shows what has happened, which has no relation to what might happen. To make a simple analogy - No matter how many times you walk blindly into a busy street without getting hit by a car it is still dangerous to do so.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      There is that, but we KNOW what is going to happen with climate change. People are not going to change their ways before it's too late. We LOVE energy, and upcoming countries are only going to use more fossil fuel and it's going to get worse. Unless there is a 10x increase in our capabilities in renewables in the next 10 years we're done.
      - Kon5ole 5y ago
        A fair point, but I feel that we are making good progress towards being able to solve the energy supply without nuclear. If we develop solar and wind (and other things such as battery banks, pumped storage etc) to a point where installations are cheap, well known and reliable enough, then developing nations might choose to use those before investing heavily in fossils.

borski 5y ago

I agree with you in general, but I think the massive failure mode is less about deaths and more about making large swaths of land in the world entirely uninhabitable by humans. I also agree the probability is way lower now, but the failure mode is huge nonetheless.

onepointsixC 5y ago
In fear of making small area's of land uninhabitable by humans for a short period of time, we are making the entire planet uninhabitable by humans permanently.
- borski 5y ago
  I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to very clearly state that the "worst" failure modes are not equivalent.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
loeg 5y ago
> I think the massive failure mode is less about deaths and more about making large swaths of land in the world entirely uninhabitable by humans. Are you talking about the land required by solar/wind generation? I wouldn't say it makes it uninhabitable by humans, but I wouldn't want to live under a big turbine.
- borski 5y ago
  I'm talking about the failure mode of a nuclear plant exploding. Windmills and solar farms can be dismantled and moved. Nuclear plants, once a catastrophic failure happens, infect all the land around them for many miles and there is ~nothing you an do about it. See: Chernobyl. That said, this is extremely unlikely given everything we know now and how technology has progressed. But the 'uninhabitable wasteland' is the failure mode people are worried about.
annexrichmond 5y ago
don't have the numbers on hand, but if you compare energy output per acres, wind/solar farms are no competition to nuclear. I wonder what those numbers look like once you amortize those failure modes.
- borski 5y ago
  This would be an interesting analysis - agreed!
panick21 5y ago
Many people live in the exclusion zone just fine. Their rates of cancer are not higher then anywhere else. Much of that area could be inhabited just fine. And again, that's like saying 'Early Zepplins destroyed to much stuff we can never use airplanes again' as if the reactors there are in any way comparable to modern reactors.
- borski 5y ago
  This would be news to me! Sources please? I'd love to learn more about that. Also, your analogy doesn't hold; the failure mode of 'early zeppelins' or pretty much any other technology is very temporary. Nuclear fallout is very long. I agree technology has gotten better. To be clear, I think we should build more nuclear plants. But it is false to state that the failure modes of wind/solar and nuclear failures are ~equivalent.
  - panick21 5y ago
    Not that temporary for people who died. Actually look into modern GenIV reactors and try to come up with scenarios where a large numbers of people die. Its basically impossible. Maybe if you use multiple terrorists and multiple natural catastrophes in a coordinated you might get somewhere. Any practical failure mode would not leave the exclusion zone of the plant. And even those are incredibly unlikely. The thing is there is simply nothing that convince you otherwise. If you believe the only relevant argument is the very maximum damage possible no matter the circumstance then I lost the debate. The question to me is what is the practical danger and how many people would die if you powered a whole country of 300 million people with a technology. With GenIV nuclear plants you could power 300 million people for 100 years and the expect times you would have a Chernobyl style event would still be far below 1. The expect number of people to die would be far smaller then wind as well. If you include home solar, it would be less as well. Maybe centralized solar is comparable. Edit: You can lots of articles and reporting on them. Its mostly people who just never left. The area is depopulating as people die of old age and there is no migration to the area.

kelnos 5y ago

I think a more accurate comparison would be number of deaths per unit of electricity generated. Yes, in absolute numbers, there have been more deaths due to fossil fuel burning, but we've also generated a hell of a lot more electricity by burning fossil fuels then we have anything else. I suspect nuclear will still come out as being safer, but I think we should be a bit more rigorous with how we do comparisons.

fighterpilot 5y ago
The data I was referring to is already normalized in that way: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy I don't believe an honest person can look at that chart and think nuclear safety is a a real problem, especially since the majority of those nuclear deaths were with old reactor designs. It seems like one of those misplaced, irrational fears like fear of flying.
- Kon5ole 5y ago
  I believe you are making a logical mistake. The chart only shows what has happened, which has no relation to what might happen. To make a simple analogy - No matter how many times you walk blindly into a busy street without getting hit by a car it is still dangerous to do so.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    There is that, but we KNOW what is going to happen with climate change. People are not going to change their ways before it's too late. We LOVE energy, and upcoming countries are only going to use more fossil fuel and it's going to get worse. Unless there is a 10x increase in our capabilities in renewables in the next 10 years we're done.
    - Kon5ole 5y ago
      A fair point, but I feel that we are making good progress towards being able to solve the energy supply without nuclear. If we develop solar and wind (and other things such as battery banks, pumped storage etc) to a point where installations are cheap, well known and reliable enough, then developing nations might choose to use those before investing heavily in fossils.