6 ms·

No, even with low estimations of the amount of nuclear victims (those published by UN's Word Health Organization) solar/wind/hydro are the safest ones and any n

No, even with low estimations of the amount of nuclear victims (those published by UN's Word Health Organization) solar/wind/hydro are the safest ones and any new major nuclear disaster may further imbalance: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
korantu 4y ago
Hydro is very terrain-dependent, solar and wind can't do baseload, so for baseload nuclear is still best applicable in most parts of the world. Nuclear saves a lot of lives by displacing other, way more dangerous baseload operations. [0] [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#contrary-to-popular-belief-nuclear-power-has-saved-lives-by-displacing-fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#contrary...
- natmaka 4y ago
  > solar and wind can't do baseload Not really, as we know how, at continental scale, adequately use wind and solar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422
cyphar 4y ago
The data used by that study is actually based on the pessimistic estimates from the older WHO analysis. If you use the more modern estimates by the UNSCEAR (the United Nations body dealing with effects of radiation), nuclear power is safer than any other kind of power on a per-TWh basis. It's not really honest to say that an already pessimistic estimate (which is now considered by at least some scientists -- including the UN body dealing with the topic -- to be incorrect) might be underestimating total deaths from Chernobyl.
- natmaka 4y ago
  There is no universally accepted way to estimate the amount of victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
  - cyphar 4y ago
    The Wikipedia article you linked to says that work was not peer-reviewed and four academic reviews were published criticising it (with only one positive review which still said it had shortcomings). You can choose to believe that Chernobyl killed just shy of 1 million people but that's at odds with all peer-reviewed research on the topic (which projects it will reach the mid-to-low thousands in total, with the current death toll in the hundreds at most).
    - natmaka 4y ago
      Everybody can read about the authors and methods, abut the critics and their answer to it. > mid-to-low thousands in total, with the current death toll in the hundreds at most ... isn't exactly summarizing the (quite large) spectrum of estimations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#/media/File:Estimated_number_of_deaths_from_the_Chernobyl_nuclear_disaster,_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...
- trashtester 4y ago
  Chernobyl killed millions or tens of millions of people: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f... Let's say Chernobyl didn't happen, then I would guess around 10% of those fossil fuel deaths would have been prevented. Quick calculation 8.7mill/year * 10 % * 30 years = 26.1 million. So, lets say that the pessimistic side of "mainstream" research on number of deaths from Chernobyl is 26000, the "nuclear scare" effect still caused maybe 1000x as many deaths. Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude, that's still 100x.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

korantu 4y ago

Hydro is very terrain-dependent, solar and wind can't do baseload, so for baseload nuclear is still best applicable in most parts of the world. Nuclear saves a lot of lives by displacing other, way more dangerous baseload operations. [0] [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#contrary-to-popular-belief-nuclear-power-has-saved-lives-by-displacing-fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#contrary...

natmaka 4y ago
> solar and wind can't do baseload Not really, as we know how, at continental scale, adequately use wind and solar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422

cyphar 4y ago

The data used by that study is actually based on the pessimistic estimates from the older WHO analysis. If you use the more modern estimates by the UNSCEAR (the United Nations body dealing with effects of radiation), nuclear power is safer than any other kind of power on a per-TWh basis. It's not really honest to say that an already pessimistic estimate (which is now considered by at least some scientists -- including the UN body dealing with the topic -- to be incorrect) might be underestimating total deaths from Chernobyl.

natmaka 4y ago
There is no universally accepted way to estimate the amount of victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
- cyphar 4y ago
  The Wikipedia article you linked to says that work was not peer-reviewed and four academic reviews were published criticising it (with only one positive review which still said it had shortcomings). You can choose to believe that Chernobyl killed just shy of 1 million people but that's at odds with all peer-reviewed research on the topic (which projects it will reach the mid-to-low thousands in total, with the current death toll in the hundreds at most).
  - natmaka 4y ago
    Everybody can read about the authors and methods, abut the critics and their answer to it. > mid-to-low thousands in total, with the current death toll in the hundreds at most ... isn't exactly summarizing the (quite large) spectrum of estimations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#/media/File:Estimated_number_of_deaths_from_the_Chernobyl_nuclear_disaster,_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...
trashtester 4y ago
Chernobyl killed millions or tens of millions of people: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f... Let's say Chernobyl didn't happen, then I would guess around 10% of those fossil fuel deaths would have been prevented. Quick calculation 8.7mill/year * 10 % * 30 years = 26.1 million. So, lets say that the pessimistic side of "mainstream" research on number of deaths from Chernobyl is 26000, the "nuclear scare" effect still caused maybe 1000x as many deaths. Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude, that's still 100x.