3 ms·
> I find it dangerous to a) put nuclear and hydro/wind in the same "non-emission" category, especially when nuclear does emit radioactive solid waste and the oc
by arcticbull 4y ago
> I find it dangerous to a) put nuclear and hydro/wind in the same "non-emission" category, especially when nuclear does emit radioactive solid waste and the occasional radioactive cloud when they go boom, b) to reduce the comparison to a price-tag, where indeed nuclear will win
It doesn't emit anything, radioactive waste is captured entirely on the other side. They also don't go boom.
They're in the same category because they're both zero-carbon power. If you want to compare safety, deaths per TWh has nuclear right in the same area as wind and solar - less than rooftop solar.
- otikik 4y agoThat’s a good point. Of course installing solar on a rooftop has a small possibility of accident, and the energy produced on a single house is not that big. Multiply and you get … a big number, perhaps? Do you happen to have sources?
- arcticbull 4y agoAh sorry of course. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...