3 ms·

If it is retrospective, it doesn't really say anything about renewables because for most of the last 50 years they haven't been [meaningfully] feasible. The de

If it is retrospective, it doesn't really say anything about renewables because for most of the last 50 years they haven't been [meaningfully] feasible. The debate going forward is still entirely valid because nuclear has upsides that contrast with renewable. It should be part of the discussion.

runarberg 5y ago
It is still a rather strange shift in perspective. We don’t count the people saved by taking public transit, we count the people killed by cars. Speculating what was and wasn’t feasible for the past 50 years is even stranger. Usually these comparisons have an implicit all else being equal because you can get into some real funky speculations with alternative history without it. For example, if we had neither coal nor nuclear how different would the energy market be today? Would there have been more innovations in renewables and the current technology would have been reached in the 80s? Or would we have implemented our infrastructure to maximize energy efficiency? How many lives would that have saved? You get the point. This practice gets unnecessarily complicated really fast. I agree with parent that the only reason to say that “nuclear saves lives“ over “coal destroys lives” is that you have an agenda to promote nuclear over alternatives without mentioning those alternatives.
- belorn 5y ago
  City planners do make estimates on how much traffic is reduced by introducing more and new public transit. They also make estimates on reduced traffic accidents when building news roads and redirect traffic away from more dangerous paths and those close to high risk areas like schools. We can also compare similar sized locations and compare outcomes. How many lives dies to traffic accidents in cities prioritizing bike lanes and mass transit compared to same sized cities that prioritize car travel? We can also count how many people that die to air pollution related illness in countries with a lot of coal power and compare that to cities with a lot of nuclear power. We can also look at countries like Island or Norway, through countries that can exclusively depend on hydro/geothermal power has a fairly low sample size. With coal we can get a fairly massive sample size just looking at the scope of a city.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    Indeed. The logic goes: Vehicular traffic kills so-and-so many people. We can significantly lower that number by reducing vehicular miles traveled. Options include better bike infrastructure, better public transit, mixed zoning, lower speed limits, etc. If a city engineer would invert the logic and start with “Bicycle lanes have saved so-and-so many lives”. That would be rather odd wouldn’t it?
    - belorn 5y ago
      If I search for "Bicycle lanes lives saved" (and alternative version of the search string) I find plenty of articles and even studies with those words in the title. Here is one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2022/03/09/bicycle-infrastructure-saves-lives-in-more-ways-than-one/?sh=4fb615817942 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2022/03/09/bicycle-... In the United States, just under 1 percent of commuters travel by bicycle, Patz said. Increasing that slice to 6 percent—the level in Madison, WI—would avoid 20,000 premature deaths per year, he said > That would be rather odd wouldn’t it? Maybe I read too much news but No, I don't find it odd. Building safer roads, reducing traffic, improving traffic safety, does save lives. Reducing air pollution saves lives too.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

runarberg 5y ago

It is still a rather strange shift in perspective. We don’t count the people saved by taking public transit, we count the people killed by cars. Speculating what was and wasn’t feasible for the past 50 years is even stranger. Usually these comparisons have an implicit all else being equal because you can get into some real funky speculations with alternative history without it. For example, if we had neither coal nor nuclear how different would the energy market be today? Would there have been more innovations in renewables and the current technology would have been reached in the 80s? Or would we have implemented our infrastructure to maximize energy efficiency? How many lives would that have saved? You get the point. This practice gets unnecessarily complicated really fast. I agree with parent that the only reason to say that “nuclear saves lives“ over “coal destroys lives” is that you have an agenda to promote nuclear over alternatives without mentioning those alternatives.

belorn 5y ago
City planners do make estimates on how much traffic is reduced by introducing more and new public transit. They also make estimates on reduced traffic accidents when building news roads and redirect traffic away from more dangerous paths and those close to high risk areas like schools. We can also compare similar sized locations and compare outcomes. How many lives dies to traffic accidents in cities prioritizing bike lanes and mass transit compared to same sized cities that prioritize car travel? We can also count how many people that die to air pollution related illness in countries with a lot of coal power and compare that to cities with a lot of nuclear power. We can also look at countries like Island or Norway, through countries that can exclusively depend on hydro/geothermal power has a fairly low sample size. With coal we can get a fairly massive sample size just looking at the scope of a city.
- runarberg 5y ago
  Indeed. The logic goes: Vehicular traffic kills so-and-so many people. We can significantly lower that number by reducing vehicular miles traveled. Options include better bike infrastructure, better public transit, mixed zoning, lower speed limits, etc. If a city engineer would invert the logic and start with “Bicycle lanes have saved so-and-so many lives”. That would be rather odd wouldn’t it?
  - belorn 5y ago
    If I search for "Bicycle lanes lives saved" (and alternative version of the search string) I find plenty of articles and even studies with those words in the title. Here is one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2022/03/09/bicycle-infrastructure-saves-lives-in-more-ways-than-one/?sh=4fb615817942 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2022/03/09/bicycle-... In the United States, just under 1 percent of commuters travel by bicycle, Patz said. Increasing that slice to 6 percent—the level in Madison, WI—would avoid 20,000 premature deaths per year, he said > That would be rather odd wouldn’t it? Maybe I read too much news but No, I don't find it odd. Building safer roads, reducing traffic, improving traffic safety, does save lives. Reducing air pollution saves lives too.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]