8 ms·
I just listened to a freakonomics podcast episode on this topic where they pointed out that more people die of opioid overdose in the US alone every year than h
by latortuga 4y ago
I just listened to a freakonomics podcast episode on this topic where they pointed out that more people die of opioid overdose in the US alone every year than have died from the entire history of nuclear reactor incidents.
- chatterhead 4y agoConsidering we're in the middle of a raging opioid epidemic where tens of thousands are dying each year from 100% preventable deaths is not a decent metric for what trade offs we should expect with the basics of powering our society. Even in the face of a 75 year history. This kind of logic smacks of something that ends with Logan's Run.
- ncmncm 4y agoThe overwhelming problem with nuclear reactors is not safety, but extreme cost to build and to operate. An inherently safe reactor design might be a little cheaper to operate, but might be even more expensive to build. Or might be a little less. But for any reactor to be worth building today, it would have to cost a lot less. That is unlikely, particularly since the regulations are written for inherently unsafe reactors, and this new safe-ish one would still need to conform to existing regulations, strictly needed or not. Even relaxing regulations, it would still cost much more to operate than alternatives we now have available.
- arcticbull 4y agoCoal power kills 25 people per TWh vs nuclear's 0.04 (yes that includes the 4000 people who died at Chernobyl and the 1 person who died in Fukushima). [1] The US generates ~22% of its power from coal, about 900TWh. As such, coal kills 22,500 people per year in America - five and a half Chernobyl's per year. [2] Meanwhile the US generates ~19% of its power from nuclear, about 800TWh. This accounts for 32 deaths. [2] The disparity is so huge that even if you include the 2202 people who died evacuating the area around the Fukushima plant (who may well have evacuated anyways due to the tsunami), the nuclear power plant saved significantly more lives than it cost vs. having a coal, oil or natural gas plant there. [edit] For those curious about the math, the Fukushima plant has a nameplate 5306MW capacity and operated from 1979-2011. That means it generated a maximum of ~1500TWh. Based on the numbers in [1]: - A coal plant at Fukushima would have killed 36,900. - An oil plant would have killed 27,600. - A natural gas plant would have killed 4,200. - A biomass plant would have killed 6,900. - Hydro would have killed 1,950. So the second-worst nuclear accident in history was safer than a natural gas power plant even if you count the worst-case metric of everyone in the area who died leaving the area they may have left anyways. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [2] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
- ncmncm 4y agoCoal is being phased out. There is no point in talking about coal.
- arcticbull 4y agoGood news, the data in [1] shows its safety numbers have it sandwiched between wind and solar, and it produces significantly less greenhouse gas emissions than either (although all three are roughly zero).
- labster 4y agoIs it? Has anyone told China, India, and Australia that yet?
- merely-unlikely 4y agoOr the UK. UK Extends Life of Third Coal Plant to Secure Winter Electricity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-13/uniper-extends-life-of-uk-coal-unit-to-secure-winter-electricity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-13/uniper-ex...
- ncmncm 4y agoWars trigger emergency measures. It would be extremely foolish to project this as a trend.
- ncmncm 4y agoWho is building new coal plants? Who does not have plans to close coal plants? Who is exploring for new coal reserves?
- lern_too_spel 4y agoChina is building new coal plants. https://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/press/7488/plans-for-new-coal-plants-in-china-rebound-with-8-63-gw-approved-in-the-first-quarter-of-2022/ https://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/press/7488/plans-for-new...
- wrycoder 4y agoConsidering that the deaths from fentanyl, alone, in the US are over 60,000 per year, while the total number of documented deaths due to radioactive incidents is well under 1000, the podcast is on safe grounds making that statement.
- User23 4y agoI think this is something that really needs more publicity. When I was younger street drugs were stupid, but generally speaking not lethally so. Now anytime you take an illicit substance you're risking a fentanyl OD.
- dbrueck 4y agoCame here to comment on the same thing - that was a great episode. I also found very interesting the stat that, per unit of electricity produced, nuclear has been safer than basically every other form of power production.
- throwoutway 4y agoI’m going to have to listen to that episode. I wonder what deaths occurred from Solar? Perhaps a lot installers have fallen off roofs?
- onionisafruit 4y agoAs a nuclear proponent and recovering addict, that is a ridiculous comparison. If nuclear fission felt like oxy and was as accessible, there would be a lot more deaths.
- tuatoru 4y agoI agree. "Coal kills more people when working as designed" is a better comparison, and true.
- andrepd 4y ago"In a day" would be more accurate.
- kelnos 4y agoHow is that a useful or interesting comparison? What matters, as someone downthread referenced, are measures like deaths per unit of electricity produced when compared to other forms of power generation. Comparing things like this is like saying we shouldn't worry so much about opioid deaths because so many more people die in car crashes.
- latortuga 4y agoThose are addressed in the episode as well and nuclear is at the bottom of the list. The order of deaths per unit of electricity were Coal > Oil > Gas > Hydro > Rooftop Solar > Wind > Nuclear[1] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...