4 ms·

It's really hard to take that site seriously when it considers the impact of "a small number of people dying in accidents in supply chains – ranging from helico

It's really hard to take that site seriously when it considers the impact of "a small number of people dying in accidents in supply chains – ranging from helicopter collisions with turbines; fires during the installation of turbines or panels; and drownings on offshore wind sites" ...but thinks that Chernobyl was only responsible for 433 deaths, and they fell asleep at their computers before considering the carbon footprint of uranium mining and enrichment (and unlike materials used in permanent magnets and batteries, which everyone loves to get excited about - uranium is not recycled, nor can it be at least in the US without enormous infrastructure and policy changes.) That's how hard they had to reach for "deaths caused by wind and solar" - helicopters crashing into wind turbines. You can point to "research" like this all you like. Power companies in the US are shutting down nuclear power plants because they're not economical and installed wind/solar capacity is outpacing the shutdowns capacity-wise 6:1, and growing. Why? Because solar and wind cost a fraction of what nuclear does, and are getting cheaper every year. Meanwhile, nuclear is getting more expensive, and that's with the enormous subsidization of the entire nuclear energy program because of its importance to "defense" for weapons and propulsion. > There's far worse than slighly warm clean water going into Lake Michigan. And if a "once in a thousand years" storm (which is happening every few years) happens, and the plant does a Fukashima, and pollutes the largest fresh-water lake with radioactive waste, rendering a water supply for tens of millions of people undrinkable, then what?

arcticbull 4y ago
> ...but thinks that Chernobyl was only responsible for 433 deaths ... I can't say I've ever seen 433? About 50-ish people died from the acute effects of the disaster and over time, the number came in around 4000 according to UNSCEAR. Note for comparison that coal kills 24,000 in the US each year, and no other nuclear power accident in history has killed anyone. Maybe 1 person in Fukushima, depending on how you do the attribution. Zero at Three Mile Island. The Bangqiao dam killed 240,000 people in one fell swoop but nobody holds that against hydro. We assume we've learned from that and engineered a better dam. We seem to have different standards for the spicy rocks for some reason. > ... and they fell asleep at their computers before considering the carbon footprint of uranium mining and enrichment (and unlike materials used in permanent magnets and batteries, which everyone loves to get excited about - uranium is not recycled, nor can it be at least in the US without enormous infrastructure and policy changes.) Err, no, that's factored into the numbers. It still has a lower carbon footprint than wind and solar, let alone storage. Because uranium is so incredibly energy dense. > Why? Because solar and wind cost a fraction of what nuclear does, and are getting cheaper every year. Not for the same profile of generation, no. A pure wind and solar grid plus storage would cost dramatically more than nuclear does today. In fact even a 90% renewable grid plus storage is dramatically more expensive that nuclear today. So yeah, an incomplete solution is cheaper than a complete solution, I guess. > And if a "once in a thousand years" storm (which is happening every few years) happens, and the plant does a Fukashima, and pollutes the largest fresh-water lake with radioactive waste, rendering a water supply for tens of millions of people undrinkable, then what? This is a silly hypothetical with no basis. Anyways, the data is clear.

arcticbull 4y ago

> ...but thinks that Chernobyl was only responsible for 433 deaths ... I can't say I've ever seen 433? About 50-ish people died from the acute effects of the disaster and over time, the number came in around 4000 according to UNSCEAR. Note for comparison that coal kills 24,000 in the US each year, and no other nuclear power accident in history has killed anyone. Maybe 1 person in Fukushima, depending on how you do the attribution. Zero at Three Mile Island. The Bangqiao dam killed 240,000 people in one fell swoop but nobody holds that against hydro. We assume we've learned from that and engineered a better dam. We seem to have different standards for the spicy rocks for some reason. > ... and they fell asleep at their computers before considering the carbon footprint of uranium mining and enrichment (and unlike materials used in permanent magnets and batteries, which everyone loves to get excited about - uranium is not recycled, nor can it be at least in the US without enormous infrastructure and policy changes.) Err, no, that's factored into the numbers. It still has a lower carbon footprint than wind and solar, let alone storage. Because uranium is so incredibly energy dense. > Why? Because solar and wind cost a fraction of what nuclear does, and are getting cheaper every year. Not for the same profile of generation, no. A pure wind and solar grid plus storage would cost dramatically more than nuclear does today. In fact even a 90% renewable grid plus storage is dramatically more expensive that nuclear today. So yeah, an incomplete solution is cheaper than a complete solution, I guess. > And if a "once in a thousand years" storm (which is happening every few years) happens, and the plant does a Fukashima, and pollutes the largest fresh-water lake with radioactive waste, rendering a water supply for tens of millions of people undrinkable, then what? This is a silly hypothetical with no basis. Anyways, the data is clear.