4 ms·
>In raw deaths per megawatt nuclear wins above all else. Just a quibble here: your post is obviously pro-nuclear-power, however this sentence seems to claim th
by midoridensha 3y ago
>In raw deaths per megawatt nuclear wins above all else.
Just a quibble here: your post is obviously pro-nuclear-power, however this sentence seems to claim that nuclear power causes more deaths than any other power source, which is not what I think you meant.
- mcronce 3y agoI think that depends on your perspective - specifically, whether you think more deaths or fewer deaths is winning:)
- robviren 3y agoDeath, the heavy metal solution to climate change.
- arcticbull 3y agoI believe the OP is saying that it "wins" by having the fewest deaths per TWh, and it does - it's the same as solar and wind. [1] By far the worst is coal which [1] has conservatively at 25 deaths per TWh vs nuclear at 0.04. The worst nuclear incident of all time killed 4000 people, and Fukushima killed exactly 1 person. The third-worst, Three Mile Island killed 0. This isn't even low sample size. Nuclear has generated 20% of the entire US power demand for decades. Even if you attribute all the deaths from the bungled evacuation of Fukushima to nuclear power (2300), 10X more people would have died in the normal course of operating a coal power plant at the site over the course of the reactor's life (1485TWh from 1979 to 2011 @ 25 deaths/TWh = 37,000). [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy