4 ms·

Nuclear pollution is scary but coal pollution isn't? I bet coal pollution has killed way more than nuclear pollution per plant.

by umvi 5y ago

shepherdjerred 5y ago
Worst case for nuclear is probably worse than the worst case for coal. The planet might be transformed in unwanted ways due to global warming, but that's better than it becoming irradiated and inhospitable to life. That being said I still think that nuclear is our best option.
- kortex 5y ago
  Chernobyl was literally the worst case for nuclear power. The design flaws were myriad and the industry has learned a tremendous amount. It's not going to irradiate the whole planet, full stop. Coal is killing the planet now.
  - shepherdjerred 5y ago
    Chernobyl could have been much, much worse. It was successfully contained.
forgotmyoldname 5y ago
I think part of that is due to nuclear power primarily being in decently wealthy areas with very strict regulations and high amounts of security measures being taken. Coal plants are in even the poorest, most run down areas and run by just about everyone. They’re the baseline for energy. I support expanding nuclear energy in areas that are capable of doing so, but there are some places where nuclear would be an absolute disaster far beyond what coal could ever be.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  You could imagine, if this were to be made a global priority, a UN organisation dedicated to running nuclear plants around the world, with protection by UN forces etc. I can’t see it happening in the current anti-nuclear climate but I think it’s fixable.
  - max002 5y ago
    Wont happen, there are much more nuclear plants set to be closed than created.
merb 5y ago
both are bad and scary? why even bring them up together? there is no need to bet because both are stupid so why should nuclear power be defended here? do you know why there is no article how bad coal is? because everybody knows but unfortunatly most people do not understand how fucking bad fukushima even is, people like you that try to make nuclear look cool just because there exists something worse does not make nuclear look cooler.
- nindalf 5y ago
  > why even bring them up together Because reams of news articles are written about one but not the other, feeding the incorrect perception that one is vastly more dangerous than the other.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Here's the problem with coal power, the damage is not equatable to nuclear plants: There is no way to control the impact to the environment - areas immediately surrounding a coal plant have much higher cancer rates, the ground & streams becomes toxic, wider areas have heightened acid rain risks. Then you get to impact on the global climate. All this in a perfectly operated idealized plant. In a nuclear plant that is run properly, not even perfectly, produces radioactive waste. No atmospheric pollution, no water pollution. Major "normal" failures cause radiation leaks. These are so rare that the events are individually named. Accidents that result in atypical operation that don't even harm the plant, let alone cause external impact are all recorded, and systems are updated to prevent recurrence. Even major events like three mile island have not caused any excess deaths or cancers. Catastrophic failures have basically be down to understood design flaws: Chernobyl had an RBMK reactor with know flaws, Fukushima had emergency generators in the basement despite being advised to place them higher up. Precisely because of flooding concerns. As for waste: Nuclear waste is of course hard to manage, with most "solutions" being "bury it". Whatever the end solution is, we know it won't be as horrific as a coal plants solution: aerosolizing it and pumping it into the atmosphere. A lot of noise is made about decommissioning a nuclear plant. Decommission a nuclear plant means deconstruction of the reactor and removing the remaining waste. There is no need to remediate the land itself. No one talks about decommissioning coal plants as they simply don't: the land on and around the site is left permanently toxic.
techsin101 5y ago
yes, coal doesn't lead to a choice between obliterating northern hemisphere vs living with 30x radiation.
phs318u 5y ago
You're conflating pollution (which I take to mean typical by-products of both fuel generation i.e. during mining, and power generation i.e. at the plant) and catastrophic destruction of the plant. You may well be correct with respect to pollution - I don't know and certainly would find it tricky to determine (is there a consistent measure of "negative environmental impact" for comparing such things?). However, with respect to catastrophic destruction, this recent example at a coal plant [0], pales in comparison to something like a Chernobyl or Fukushima. [0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-newest-and-most-expensive-coal-plant-explodes-after-hydrogen-leak/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-newest-and-most-expensive...
- sofixa 5y ago
  > However, with respect to catastrophic destruction, this recent example at a coal plant [0], pales in comparison to something like a Chernobyl or Fukushima. That's not a catastrophic destruction, merely a generator explosion. Wikipedia has articles on mining and energy accidents, and you can see there are far more catastrophic one with coal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Nuclear pollution is scary but coal pollution isn't? I bet coal pollution has killed way more than nuclear pollution per plant.

by umvi 5y ago

Nuclear pollution is scary but coal pollution isn't? I bet coal pollution has killed way more than nuclear pollution per plant.

shepherdjerred 5y ago

Worst case for nuclear is probably worse than the worst case for coal. The planet might be transformed in unwanted ways due to global warming, but that's better than it becoming irradiated and inhospitable to life. That being said I still think that nuclear is our best option.

kortex 5y ago
Chernobyl was literally the worst case for nuclear power. The design flaws were myriad and the industry has learned a tremendous amount. It's not going to irradiate the whole planet, full stop. Coal is killing the planet now.
- shepherdjerred 5y ago
  Chernobyl could have been much, much worse. It was successfully contained.

forgotmyoldname 5y ago

I think part of that is due to nuclear power primarily being in decently wealthy areas with very strict regulations and high amounts of security measures being taken. Coal plants are in even the poorest, most run down areas and run by just about everyone. They’re the baseline for energy. I support expanding nuclear energy in areas that are capable of doing so, but there are some places where nuclear would be an absolute disaster far beyond what coal could ever be.

rich_sasha 5y ago
You could imagine, if this were to be made a global priority, a UN organisation dedicated to running nuclear plants around the world, with protection by UN forces etc. I can’t see it happening in the current anti-nuclear climate but I think it’s fixable.
- max002 5y ago
  Wont happen, there are much more nuclear plants set to be closed than created.

merb 5y ago

both are bad and scary? why even bring them up together? there is no need to bet because both are stupid so why should nuclear power be defended here? do you know why there is no article how bad coal is? because everybody knows but unfortunatly most people do not understand how fucking bad fukushima even is, people like you that try to make nuclear look cool just because there exists something worse does not make nuclear look cooler.

nindalf 5y ago
> why even bring them up together Because reams of news articles are written about one but not the other, feeding the incorrect perception that one is vastly more dangerous than the other.
- olliej 5y ago
  Here's the problem with coal power, the damage is not equatable to nuclear plants: There is no way to control the impact to the environment - areas immediately surrounding a coal plant have much higher cancer rates, the ground & streams becomes toxic, wider areas have heightened acid rain risks. Then you get to impact on the global climate. All this in a perfectly operated idealized plant. In a nuclear plant that is run properly, not even perfectly, produces radioactive waste. No atmospheric pollution, no water pollution. Major "normal" failures cause radiation leaks. These are so rare that the events are individually named. Accidents that result in atypical operation that don't even harm the plant, let alone cause external impact are all recorded, and systems are updated to prevent recurrence. Even major events like three mile island have not caused any excess deaths or cancers. Catastrophic failures have basically be down to understood design flaws: Chernobyl had an RBMK reactor with know flaws, Fukushima had emergency generators in the basement despite being advised to place them higher up. Precisely because of flooding concerns. As for waste: Nuclear waste is of course hard to manage, with most "solutions" being "bury it". Whatever the end solution is, we know it won't be as horrific as a coal plants solution: aerosolizing it and pumping it into the atmosphere. A lot of noise is made about decommissioning a nuclear plant. Decommission a nuclear plant means deconstruction of the reactor and removing the remaining waste. There is no need to remediate the land itself. No one talks about decommissioning coal plants as they simply don't: the land on and around the site is left permanently toxic.

techsin101 5y ago

yes, coal doesn't lead to a choice between obliterating northern hemisphere vs living with 30x radiation.

phs318u 5y ago

You're conflating pollution (which I take to mean typical by-products of both fuel generation i.e. during mining, and power generation i.e. at the plant) and catastrophic destruction of the plant. You may well be correct with respect to pollution - I don't know and certainly would find it tricky to determine (is there a consistent measure of "negative environmental impact" for comparing such things?). However, with respect to catastrophic destruction, this recent example at a coal plant [0], pales in comparison to something like a Chernobyl or Fukushima. [0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-newest-and-most-expensive-coal-plant-explodes-after-hydrogen-leak/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-newest-and-most-expensive...

sofixa 5y ago
> However, with respect to catastrophic destruction, this recent example at a coal plant [0], pales in comparison to something like a Chernobyl or Fukushima. That's not a catastrophic destruction, merely a generator explosion. Wikipedia has articles on mining and energy accidents, and you can see there are far more catastrophic one with coal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents