4 ms·

Okay. But no complaints about burning huge amounts of coal then.

by treeman79 3y ago

dale_glass 3y ago
Plenty complain, and coal is being rapidly paced out.
dataflow 3y ago
The logic doesn't follow.
bcrosby95 3y ago
There are plenty of complaints about burning coal. I don't think I've seen an article arguing for that, and if I did I would imagine people would be very against the idea.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  The high cost of nuclear _is the reason_ we still burn coal. If we hadn't over-regulated it 50 years ago there wouldn't be a coal power plant left in the country, and tens of millions of human-years would have been saved over the past several decades. And it's because we completely ignored the safety risks of coal while hyper-focusing on nuclear. There is no mythical "zero risk" power generation. Everything is context dependent. It is potentially true that at this point, cheap energy storage is close enough to make 100% renewable a reality and therefore that it's too late to make the switch to nuclear (although I'm not entirely convinced), but failing to switch fifty years ago is one of the greatest civilizational mistakes humanity has made.
thinkcontext 3y ago
How could you possibly say there are no complaints about coal?
Kirby64 3y ago
Bad as coal is, it's a consistent, lower level of bad. In aggregate it's way worse, but it's not the impending doom and enormous clean up that happens when you have a nuclear accident.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  An average coal plant produces ~1twh power per year for 40 years of its lifespan. Death directly attributable to emissions from coal plants average around 25 per 1 twh of power. So coal plants just in their operation kill at least 1000 people each, conservatively. So far there has been 1 confirmed radiation death from Fukushima Daiichi, and it operated for almost exactly 40 years. Even Chernobyl killed fewer than 50 people, though it was SUPER expensive to clean up.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The "confirmed" death bit is a dog whistle. The cancers from population radiation exposures are largely statistically undetectable (and would not all have happened yet), but regulators cannot just act as if they do not happen. Radiation is not a defendant that must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      I’m not sure what you mean by “dog whistle.” The best evidence suggests there will be no cancers related to Fukushima due to both the low levels of exposure and the long time horizons of the relevant cancers. The population effected will in all likelihood die of other causes before the cancer would occur. Chernobyl is obviously harder to parse because of confounding lifestyle issues and poverty in the region, and now the war. But I’m not sure a badly designed and run soviet RBMK should be the basis for western nuclear policy anyway.
      - uecker 3y ago
        What "best evidence"? I find it strange that coal deaths from air pollution predicted by epidemiological considerations is taken for granted while similar predictions for nuclear from uncontrolled emissions are completely rejected by nuclear proponents. Of course numbers are far lower, but I still wonder what level of cognitive dissonance can lead to this being rejected completely. I also always wonder whether mining deaths are correctly accounted. Even just add the number from a single east German mining company alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company) should change the picture somewhat.
pfdietz 3y ago
This is a false dichotomy. Coal is going away, and nuclear is not needed for that to happen.

Okay. But no complaints about burning huge amounts of coal then.

dale_glass 3y ago

Plenty complain, and coal is being rapidly paced out.

dataflow 3y ago

The logic doesn't follow.

bcrosby95 3y ago

There are plenty of complaints about burning coal. I don't think I've seen an article arguing for that, and if I did I would imagine people would be very against the idea.

MostlyStable 3y ago
The high cost of nuclear _is the reason_ we still burn coal. If we hadn't over-regulated it 50 years ago there wouldn't be a coal power plant left in the country, and tens of millions of human-years would have been saved over the past several decades. And it's because we completely ignored the safety risks of coal while hyper-focusing on nuclear. There is no mythical "zero risk" power generation. Everything is context dependent. It is potentially true that at this point, cheap energy storage is close enough to make 100% renewable a reality and therefore that it's too late to make the switch to nuclear (although I'm not entirely convinced), but failing to switch fifty years ago is one of the greatest civilizational mistakes humanity has made.

thinkcontext 3y ago

How could you possibly say there are no complaints about coal?

Kirby64 3y ago

Bad as coal is, it's a consistent, lower level of bad. In aggregate it's way worse, but it's not the impending doom and enormous clean up that happens when you have a nuclear accident.

ch4s3 3y ago
An average coal plant produces ~1twh power per year for 40 years of its lifespan. Death directly attributable to emissions from coal plants average around 25 per 1 twh of power. So coal plants just in their operation kill at least 1000 people each, conservatively. So far there has been 1 confirmed radiation death from Fukushima Daiichi, and it operated for almost exactly 40 years. Even Chernobyl killed fewer than 50 people, though it was SUPER expensive to clean up.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The "confirmed" death bit is a dog whistle. The cancers from population radiation exposures are largely statistically undetectable (and would not all have happened yet), but regulators cannot just act as if they do not happen. Radiation is not a defendant that must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    I’m not sure what you mean by “dog whistle.” The best evidence suggests there will be no cancers related to Fukushima due to both the low levels of exposure and the long time horizons of the relevant cancers. The population effected will in all likelihood die of other causes before the cancer would occur. Chernobyl is obviously harder to parse because of confounding lifestyle issues and poverty in the region, and now the war. But I’m not sure a badly designed and run soviet RBMK should be the basis for western nuclear policy anyway.
    - uecker 3y ago
      What "best evidence"? I find it strange that coal deaths from air pollution predicted by epidemiological considerations is taken for granted while similar predictions for nuclear from uncontrolled emissions are completely rejected by nuclear proponents. Of course numbers are far lower, but I still wonder what level of cognitive dissonance can lead to this being rejected completely. I also always wonder whether mining deaths are correctly accounted. Even just add the number from a single east German mining company alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company) should change the picture somewhat.

pfdietz 3y ago

This is a false dichotomy. Coal is going away, and nuclear is not needed for that to happen.