3 ms·
The simple problem is people massively overestimating how dangerous radiation actually is. That land isn't uninhabitable and the vast vast majority of that cle
by concordDance 4y ago
The simple problem is people massively overestimating how dangerous radiation actually is.
That land isn't uninhabitable and the vast vast majority of that clean up isn't cost effective on a $/life basis. You could invest that money in healthcare like breast cancer screening and get a much better return once you've done some basic cleanup of the most dangerous spots. But people insist on a clean up to a level almost as good as before rather than being homo economicus...
People hear "radiation" and are afraid, even though tire particulates are much more dangerous than living next to Three Mile Island at the time. The evacuation of towns near Fukishima was a mistake, killing far more people than would have died of radiation (check radiation map of Japan, plug in standard radiation cancer models then compare with deaths caused by the evacuation).
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoThe simple problem is that nuclear is poor value compared to renewables. Even if you add the cost of storage and a smart grid - which are useful whatever your sources - the total costs of nuclear power are still insanely expensive. And the gap is widening, because renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper. And unlike a nuclear power station, they don't take years to build. [1] According to Lazard, the total costs of nuclear energy - including value writedowns caused by slow building - make it six to twelve times more expensive than utility scale solar. Wind and geo are even cheaper. https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
- concordDance 4y agoThat's because of a regulatory rachet causing ever increasing safety standards. 1970s reactors and regs were much less sane and didn't value a human life north of a billion dollars like modern ones do.
- PaulKeeble 4y agoWe get more intake of radiation from the burning of coal than we do from nuclear power stations. Coal burning causes far more cancer than nuclear reactors have done not to mention the immense damage of all the pollution in the air damaging lungs causing asthma and other respiratory conditions. The public isn't assessing the relative risks rationally.
- eru 4y agoI mostly agree. However: > You could invest that money in healthcare like breast cancer screening and get a much better return once you've done some basic cleanup of the most dangerous spots. (Breast) cancer screening doesn't actually work all that well. Eg the US does a lot more colon cancer screening than the UK, and thus can claim that survival rates for colon cancer are much better in the US. However, if you look at how many people per million die from colon cancer each year, the rates in UK and US are almost the same. Ie American screening discovers a lot more cancers that never become a problem, but doesn't actually help in aggregate.