6 ms·

I suppose these hypothetical, rhetorical questions are convincing to some, but the data on Nuclear power is pretty good. How do you define "Clean"? Deaths per

I suppose these hypothetical, rhetorical questions are convincing to some, but the data on Nuclear power is pretty good. How do you define "Clean"? Deaths per watt? https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Maybe there's no where to store waste? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... Radiation from the waste though? "The current analysis indicates that the repository will cause less than 1 mrem/year public dose for 1,000,000 years" Or maybe we're worried about a meltdown? Perhaps we could read up on Fukushima? Well there, one person died from radiation, and 2000 from the evacuation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... The most at-risk individuals experienced a lifetime 1% increase chance of cancer. The rest were less that 0.5%. COVID had a bigger fatality rate initially. let's compare that to the 20,000 people the wave killed. (The one that caused the meltdown). These are good questions to ask, but there are, what, three total nuclear disasters to consider in modern history? And of those, only the one in Russia caused deaths (plural) and true disaster. And of the horrific conditions, incompetent design, and complete mismanagement and deliberate lying, 30 people died total. Fossil fuel pollution is responsible for (by some figures) 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. Enough.

jvanderbot 4y ago
Oh I forgot. Let's talk about transport danger. Uranium is 16,000 as energy dense as Coal (and coal is the densest) . That means you'd need ONE tanker sized craft to transport way, way more fuel than all the tankers of the world. https://www.statista.com/statistics/468405/global-oil-tanker-fleet-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/468405/global-oil-tanker...
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  And just imagine how many miles nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers have traversed without significant incident since the 1960’s.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    Navy nuclear safety is the result of planning and engineering and obscene amounts of money. There is no way commercial energy plants could profit if they spent the resources the navy does.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      Maybe energy production shouldn’t be viewed as a profit center? Socializing the thing modern civilization depends on makes sense - with unlimited energy there would be plenty of other ways to make money.
      - windows2020 4y ago
        If it wasn't a profit center we may still be burning wood.
        arrosenberg 4y ago
        Maybe, but since its not 1715 any more, I’m going to focus on what makes sense currently.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      ok. how about France? They get 70% of their power from Nuclear, starting in 1962.
      - byroot 4y ago
        Over half our reactors are currently stopped because of various corrosion issues, we regularly have to stop some because of drought, etc. France might have been the poster child for nuclear energy, but it’s on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens after you over rely on it for two decade.
        jvanderbot 4y ago
omginternets 4y ago
>30 people died total. Those are the official Soviet figures, right? My understanding is that these were laughably understated. I don't disagree with the rest of your analysis, but my experience is that people become more hostile to nuclear power when we fail to be transparent with the numbers. Moreover, even if we assume a liberal 10k deaths from the Chernobyl reactor, the math still works out in your favor.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Those are the official Soviet figures, right? official international numbers There is consensus that a total of approximately 30 people died from immediate blast trauma and acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in the seconds to months after the disaster, respectively, with 60 in total in the decades since, inclusive of later radiation induced cancer The contested numbers are those related to long term radiation exposure There is no strong evidence of an increase in deaths https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_...
  - culopatin 4y ago
    If you talk to people born in the late 80s to early 90s in the areas near Chernobyl you’ll find out that many kids died in their teens and early 20s or are living with cancer today. Maybe they didn’t die, but they no longer have thyroids. Saying that 60 total died from Chernobyl is insulting.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      WHO talked to them Still no strong evidence found WHO is not working for USSR AFAIK > that many kids died in their teens and early 20s or are living with cancer today. that's not surprising there are many people who are living with cancer worldwide radiation exposure is not the only cause for cancer I truly wish it was My dad worked in oncology, he saw too many people die of cancer in the past 45 years. Long before Chernobyl was a thing. > Maybe they didn’t die, but they no longer have thyroids Half of my family no longer has thyroids, they are all from Italy, born between 1945 and 1974. All of them are still alive and well. > Saying that 60 total died from Chernobyl is insulting but it still might be the truth
glandium 4y ago
> only the one in Russia Nit: it was in Ukraine.
- chupasaurus 4y ago
  Yep, IIRC the only nuclear disasters with deaths in Russia were Kyshtym and during the construction of K-320 submarine.

jvanderbot 4y ago

Oh I forgot. Let's talk about transport danger. Uranium is 16,000 as energy dense as Coal (and coal is the densest) . That means you'd need ONE tanker sized craft to transport way, way more fuel than all the tankers of the world. https://www.statista.com/statistics/468405/global-oil-tanker-fleet-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/468405/global-oil-tanker...

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
And just imagine how many miles nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers have traversed without significant incident since the 1960’s.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  Navy nuclear safety is the result of planning and engineering and obscene amounts of money. There is no way commercial energy plants could profit if they spent the resources the navy does.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    Maybe energy production shouldn’t be viewed as a profit center? Socializing the thing modern civilization depends on makes sense - with unlimited energy there would be plenty of other ways to make money.
    - windows2020 4y ago
      If it wasn't a profit center we may still be burning wood.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        Maybe, but since its not 1715 any more, I’m going to focus on what makes sense currently.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    ok. how about France? They get 70% of their power from Nuclear, starting in 1962.
    - byroot 4y ago
      Over half our reactors are currently stopped because of various corrosion issues, we regularly have to stop some because of drought, etc. France might have been the poster child for nuclear energy, but it’s on the verge of becoming a poster child for what happens after you over rely on it for two decade.
      - jvanderbot 4y ago

omginternets 4y ago

>30 people died total. Those are the official Soviet figures, right? My understanding is that these were laughably understated. I don't disagree with the rest of your analysis, but my experience is that people become more hostile to nuclear power when we fail to be transparent with the numbers. Moreover, even if we assume a liberal 10k deaths from the Chernobyl reactor, the math still works out in your favor.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Those are the official Soviet figures, right? official international numbers There is consensus that a total of approximately 30 people died from immediate blast trauma and acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in the seconds to months after the disaster, respectively, with 60 in total in the decades since, inclusive of later radiation induced cancer The contested numbers are those related to long term radiation exposure There is no strong evidence of an increase in deaths https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_...
- culopatin 4y ago
  If you talk to people born in the late 80s to early 90s in the areas near Chernobyl you’ll find out that many kids died in their teens and early 20s or are living with cancer today. Maybe they didn’t die, but they no longer have thyroids. Saying that 60 total died from Chernobyl is insulting.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    WHO talked to them Still no strong evidence found WHO is not working for USSR AFAIK > that many kids died in their teens and early 20s or are living with cancer today. that's not surprising there are many people who are living with cancer worldwide radiation exposure is not the only cause for cancer I truly wish it was My dad worked in oncology, he saw too many people die of cancer in the past 45 years. Long before Chernobyl was a thing. > Maybe they didn’t die, but they no longer have thyroids Half of my family no longer has thyroids, they are all from Italy, born between 1945 and 1974. All of them are still alive and well. > Saying that 60 total died from Chernobyl is insulting but it still might be the truth

glandium 4y ago

> only the one in Russia Nit: it was in Ukraine.

chupasaurus 4y ago
Yep, IIRC the only nuclear disasters with deaths in Russia were Kyshtym and during the construction of K-320 submarine.