3 ms·

The linked article seems very pro-nuclear. What a surprise. "Nuclear power has historically been one of the safest and cleanest energy sources." Again the sam

• viknesh 4y ago
  Historically speaking, this seems true. My understanding is that you're only looking at hydrocarbons (coal/gas), nuclear, and hydro, since everyone else is pretty new. Hydro is obviously the cleanest/safest, and nuclear has killed far fewer people than coal/gas.
  • infoseek12 4y ago
    Surprisingly Hydro may actually be the source of power with the most direct deaths [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure]. The deaths from the Banqiao dam failure alone dwarf the entire history of nuclear power.
• theshrike79 4y ago
  If you calculate by deaths per TWh produced, Nuclear is #2, Solar #1: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... Even hydropower is 43 more fatal than nuclear.
  • xeyownt 4y ago
    We see that wind/nuclear/solar are all far "safer" than other sources (wind 0.04 / nuclear 0.03 / solar 0.02 death/TWh). However, death rate is only one metric for safety. Fukushima may not have made (yet) lot of deaths, but it sure impacted a huge population, and will do so for many years to come. One has to look at the impact of an incident. Once installed, solar or wind poses very little risk to you or your neighbors, even in case of natural disasters. And even in the case of the worst impact (deaths), this impact is limited in time/space. This is absolutely not the case of nuclear. Moreover, how do you evaluate the risk of nuclear waste?