4 ms·
Haven't read the paywalled article but the idea that nuclear is clean compared to coal is ridiculous as evidenced by Chernobyl and Fukushima and Three Mile Isla
by dave333 5y ago
Haven't read the paywalled article but the idea that nuclear is clean compared to coal is ridiculous as evidenced by Chernobyl and Fukushima and Three Mile Island and Windscale. Nuclear pollution is about 1 trillion trillion times worse than coal and is sufficiently common - roughly one major nuclear accident per decade to be non-negligible. It's not safe to assume nuclear power is getting safer when terrorism and nations that sponsor terrorists are getting worse.
- acidburnNSA 5y agoIncluding all accidents mentioned, nuclear energy is a few hundred times safer than coal, per TWh generated [1]. In fact, air pollution from fossil and biofuel combustion kills as many people that died and will die from Chernobyl (around 4000) every 7.5 hours, and counting. When you dig into the data, nuclear is shockingly safe. And that's not even considering climate change impacts, where nuclear is about as low carbon as you can get, in the full lifecycle. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- clavicat 5y ago>the idea that nuclear is clean compared to coal is ridiculous as evidenced by Chernobyl and Fukushima and Three Mile Island and Windscale What kind of “evidence” is that? If you add up all the deaths that resulted from these disasters, it’s an small fraction of the people that die from coal pollution every year—670,000 in China alone. How are you getting a trillion times worse?