3 ms·

> 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 m

> 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.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  Not to deter from your point, but said basement was far far above the water line and even above the flood wall. And different placement would have been more risky for earthquake damage. The failing was the insufficient flood wall, which TEPCO very definitely knew about, with almost exactly this scenario predicted, not the placement of backup generators.

> 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.

sascha_sl 5y ago
Not to deter from your point, but said basement was far far above the water line and even above the flood wall. And different placement would have been more risky for earthquake damage. The failing was the insufficient flood wall, which TEPCO very definitely knew about, with almost exactly this scenario predicted, not the placement of backup generators.