3 ms·

Comparing the safety records of fossil fuels and nuclear, while ignoring the safety of solar, is dishonest. >150% of my power requirements is produced by panels

Comparing the safety records of fossil fuels and nuclear, while ignoring the safety of solar, is dishonest. >150% of my power requirements is produced by panels on my roof.

naasking 5y ago
If it feels dishonest, then you should do more research. Nuclear is safer than solar too: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
- justatdotin 5y ago
  do you have a supporting reference from this century? or at least, more recent than Chernobyl?
  - godelski 5y ago
    I do[0] > the death toll of history’s two nuclear disasters we have added the death rate that Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) estimated for occupational deaths, most from milling and mining. Their published rate is 0.022 deaths per TWh. > The sum of these three data points gives us a death rate of 0.07 deaths per TWh. We might consider this an upper estimate. > For example, included in this database were deaths related to an incident where from a water tank ruptured during a construction test at a solar factory. It’s not clear whether these supply chain deaths should or shouldn’t be attributed as a death from solar technologies. Deaths: Nuclear 0.07 vs Solar 0.02. Greenhouse gasses: Nuclear 3 tonnes vs Solar 5 tonnes Here's one from 2012[1] where they breakdown nuclear deaths to include Chernobyl and Fukushima and remove those (i.e. electricity). Nuclear wins by a lot. Or a 2014 study[2] showing nuclear beating solar rooftop (note, concentrated solar is a lot safer than rooftop. Concentrated is actually safer than nuclear but the death rates are so small I'm not sure why we're arguing over them). There's plenty of sources showing nuclear's death rates are roughly the same as solar, wind, and hydro. All of which are 2 orders of magnitude below biomass and natural gas and 3 below coal and oil. Similarly also 2-3 orders of magnitude less than coal, natural gas, and oil (1 magnitude less than hydro). These discussions are absurd. We just end up sitting here quibbling over a small tradeoff between emissions and deaths (a very difficult thing to measure) while we just keep producing gas, oil, and coal. Pick your battles. When we have a clean grid we can quibble over these numbers because at that point they will be significant. But at this time they aren't even close. If you want to complain about the cost of nuclear, sure, that's a fair and honest discussion we can have. But there is no evidence to suggest that nuclear isn't safe and green. This is very concerning when it represents 50% of the zero carbon emission energy in the US. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=59ea929b709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-source-in-deaths-per-billion-kWh-produced-Source-Updated_tbl2_272406182 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-so...
    - justatdotin 5y ago
      you know what's really absurd? you started off with a 50yo source claiming solar has >100 times the deaths of nuclear, then fell back to claims that they're 'roughly the same' and 'just a small tradeoff' but go on to say there is no evidence nuclear isn't safe. I've picked my battle and I've picked a winner. solar has been giving me more power than I know what to do with for years. More than 10% of my suburb has rooftop, there are 3 small grid arrays within 100k, and a 10gw plant being built down the highway that will produce enough untapped energy to kickstart new manufacturing.
      - godelski 5y ago
        You know I'm a different person, right? > More than 10% of my suburb has rooftop, there are 3 small grid arrays within 100k Great! I'm not anti-solar. Nor is anyone I know that is pro-nuclear. We tend to also be pro-renewables. It is just that nuclear shouldn't be taken off the table when we're facing a crisis.
        justatdotin 5y ago
        sorry, that's two fumbles in one day. I gotta slow down :(

Comparing the safety records of fossil fuels and nuclear, while ignoring the safety of solar, is dishonest. >150% of my power requirements is produced by panels on my roof.

naasking 5y ago

If it feels dishonest, then you should do more research. Nuclear is safer than solar too: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...

justatdotin 5y ago
do you have a supporting reference from this century? or at least, more recent than Chernobyl?
- godelski 5y ago
  I do[0] > the death toll of history’s two nuclear disasters we have added the death rate that Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) estimated for occupational deaths, most from milling and mining. Their published rate is 0.022 deaths per TWh. > The sum of these three data points gives us a death rate of 0.07 deaths per TWh. We might consider this an upper estimate. > For example, included in this database were deaths related to an incident where from a water tank ruptured during a construction test at a solar factory. It’s not clear whether these supply chain deaths should or shouldn’t be attributed as a death from solar technologies. Deaths: Nuclear 0.07 vs Solar 0.02. Greenhouse gasses: Nuclear 3 tonnes vs Solar 5 tonnes Here's one from 2012[1] where they breakdown nuclear deaths to include Chernobyl and Fukushima and remove those (i.e. electricity). Nuclear wins by a lot. Or a 2014 study[2] showing nuclear beating solar rooftop (note, concentrated solar is a lot safer than rooftop. Concentrated is actually safer than nuclear but the death rates are so small I'm not sure why we're arguing over them). There's plenty of sources showing nuclear's death rates are roughly the same as solar, wind, and hydro. All of which are 2 orders of magnitude below biomass and natural gas and 3 below coal and oil. Similarly also 2-3 orders of magnitude less than coal, natural gas, and oil (1 magnitude less than hydro). These discussions are absurd. We just end up sitting here quibbling over a small tradeoff between emissions and deaths (a very difficult thing to measure) while we just keep producing gas, oil, and coal. Pick your battles. When we have a clean grid we can quibble over these numbers because at that point they will be significant. But at this time they aren't even close. If you want to complain about the cost of nuclear, sure, that's a fair and honest discussion we can have. But there is no evidence to suggest that nuclear isn't safe and green. This is very concerning when it represents 50% of the zero carbon emission energy in the US. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=59ea929b709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-source-in-deaths-per-billion-kWh-produced-Source-Updated_tbl2_272406182 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-so...
  - justatdotin 5y ago
    you know what's really absurd? you started off with a 50yo source claiming solar has >100 times the deaths of nuclear, then fell back to claims that they're 'roughly the same' and 'just a small tradeoff' but go on to say there is no evidence nuclear isn't safe. I've picked my battle and I've picked a winner. solar has been giving me more power than I know what to do with for years. More than 10% of my suburb has rooftop, there are 3 small grid arrays within 100k, and a 10gw plant being built down the highway that will produce enough untapped energy to kickstart new manufacturing.
    - godelski 5y ago
      You know I'm a different person, right? > More than 10% of my suburb has rooftop, there are 3 small grid arrays within 100k Great! I'm not anti-solar. Nor is anyone I know that is pro-nuclear. We tend to also be pro-renewables. It is just that nuclear shouldn't be taken off the table when we're facing a crisis.
      - justatdotin 5y ago
        sorry, that's two fumbles in one day. I gotta slow down :(