6 ms·

> But radiation hasn’t harmed anywhere near as many people as fossil fuels. The implication with both this statement and the map is that we should be comparing

> But radiation hasn’t harmed anywhere near as many people as fossil fuels. The implication with both this statement and the map is that we should be comparing the total number of people who died from radiation, and the total from fossil fuels, and see which is bigger, but there are other ways of evaluating (potential) harms. Nuclear power and other radtech is not equally common around the world, and neither are fossil fuels. In the context of promoting transition from one to the other, the important question is the relative harm of these two choices as a function of their deployment over time. There have been events from minor leaks to world-changing disasters, all of which are contingent on human factors which vary widely across time and space. So it's not clear that increasing global rollout of nuclear power will be as consistently safe in the future as it has been in the recent past.

gorgonical 4y ago
There are a few ways of comparing these numbers. I think you're suggesting that something like deaths/kWh is a better metric, which I agree with; if we just go with total deaths than something like pedal-driven generators are the safest way to generate power, which is obviously an unhelpful statement. However, the greater point is that although nuclear power is dangerous by default because of the waste and risks of meltdowns it can be made very safe with engineering and still be a cheap generation method. By all accounts I'm familiar with fossil fuels cannot be made safe for either the environment or people while still being cost-effective. A major issue in the nuclear vs fossil fuels argument is perceived vs actual risk. I don't have the numbers, but even though Fukushima was a huge disaster, the death toll is officially 1. But the cleanup has been very expensive and very visible. Meanwhile, coal/gas/oil plants deflect the equivalent costs of their cleanup onto workers and people in the communities in increased mortality and healthcare costs. More succinctly, nuclear can be safe with effort, but fossil fuels seemingly can't be safe, no matter how much effort.
- wcerfgba 4y ago
  I agree deaths/kWh is a better metrics, and I was probing into your point about how nuclear can be safer due to better engineering. Is the engineering alone enough? Can we engineer out the risky human parts? Perhaps today that looks like increasing automation of reactors, perhaps in future it means a computer could run an entire station without human inputs or oversight. Also great points about perceived vs actual risk, and observability of effects, as other things affecting the political landscape of nuclear!
concordDance 4y ago
In deaths per KWh nuclear is king, with a thousandth of the deaths of gas and ten thousandth of coal. Until recently even solar was worse due to installers sometimes falling off roofs! E.g. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... I really do not understand why almost no one bothers to spend a couple of minutes looking up the actual numbers and analysis that people have been doing for decades... its universal in all subjects, not just nuclear.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  However rooftop solar reduces the need for a grid and grid maintenance. Are the deaths due to grid building and maintenance accounted for in these figures? It looks to be based on just production, not production plus distribution.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    And solar increases the need for storage. There are certainly all kinds of indirect effects that might skew those numbers, and so it's very much possible solar does better. That isn't really the point - the point is that nuclear is a whole lot safer than many widespread alternatives. While some would like nuclear to replace solar as well, I think most of those of us who see nuclear as unnecessarily maligned are more frustrated by how e.g. coal and fossil fuels remain in the mix despite the massive number of deaths they cause. E.g. the German decision to shut down nuclear plants and as a consequence needing to run coal plants longer will likely cause more deaths than all nuclear plants combined through the history of nuclear power.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      Sure. I too am annoyed by the shut down of nuclear power plants. Any marginal ultra-long-term safety gain of not generating new waste is more than offset by the already sunk costs of the nuclear power plant. And the bad effects of coal burning.

gorgonical 4y ago

There are a few ways of comparing these numbers. I think you're suggesting that something like deaths/kWh is a better metric, which I agree with; if we just go with total deaths than something like pedal-driven generators are the safest way to generate power, which is obviously an unhelpful statement. However, the greater point is that although nuclear power is dangerous by default because of the waste and risks of meltdowns it can be made very safe with engineering and still be a cheap generation method. By all accounts I'm familiar with fossil fuels cannot be made safe for either the environment or people while still being cost-effective. A major issue in the nuclear vs fossil fuels argument is perceived vs actual risk. I don't have the numbers, but even though Fukushima was a huge disaster, the death toll is officially 1. But the cleanup has been very expensive and very visible. Meanwhile, coal/gas/oil plants deflect the equivalent costs of their cleanup onto workers and people in the communities in increased mortality and healthcare costs. More succinctly, nuclear can be safe with effort, but fossil fuels seemingly can't be safe, no matter how much effort.

wcerfgba 4y ago
I agree deaths/kWh is a better metrics, and I was probing into your point about how nuclear can be safer due to better engineering. Is the engineering alone enough? Can we engineer out the risky human parts? Perhaps today that looks like increasing automation of reactors, perhaps in future it means a computer could run an entire station without human inputs or oversight. Also great points about perceived vs actual risk, and observability of effects, as other things affecting the political landscape of nuclear!

concordDance 4y ago

In deaths per KWh nuclear is king, with a thousandth of the deaths of gas and ten thousandth of coal. Until recently even solar was worse due to installers sometimes falling off roofs! E.g. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... I really do not understand why almost no one bothers to spend a couple of minutes looking up the actual numbers and analysis that people have been doing for decades... its universal in all subjects, not just nuclear.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
However rooftop solar reduces the need for a grid and grid maintenance. Are the deaths due to grid building and maintenance accounted for in these figures? It looks to be based on just production, not production plus distribution.
- vidarh 4y ago
  And solar increases the need for storage. There are certainly all kinds of indirect effects that might skew those numbers, and so it's very much possible solar does better. That isn't really the point - the point is that nuclear is a whole lot safer than many widespread alternatives. While some would like nuclear to replace solar as well, I think most of those of us who see nuclear as unnecessarily maligned are more frustrated by how e.g. coal and fossil fuels remain in the mix despite the massive number of deaths they cause. E.g. the German decision to shut down nuclear plants and as a consequence needing to run coal plants longer will likely cause more deaths than all nuclear plants combined through the history of nuclear power.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Sure. I too am annoyed by the shut down of nuclear power plants. Any marginal ultra-long-term safety gain of not generating new waste is more than offset by the already sunk costs of the nuclear power plant. And the bad effects of coal burning.