5 ms·

Just looking at deaths doesn't really tell the whole story. There aren't a lot of towns that have had to be evacuated and abandoned due to solar industry accide

by tedivm 3y ago

Just looking at deaths doesn't really tell the whole story. There aren't a lot of towns that have had to be evacuated and abandoned due to solar industry accidents.

mpweiher 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure 1975 Chinese Dam fails 150K deaths 4.6 million homes destroyed 11 million people displaced Number of countries getting out of hydro: 0 ( in words: zero ) Japan and Ukraine are both among the countries that signed the “tripling nuclear by 2050” pledge. My guess would be that they have the best information on the risks of nuclear.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  You can still build new homes on that land once it's dry. It's not contaminated with radioactivity. Imagine one of the old French reactors "going nuclear" right in the middle of dense populated Europe. It looks like a derailment and OPs argument still stands, imho. The only thing is that you can add results of radiation throughout generations, where people develop mutations and/or die early. None of those cases are in the handy graphic from above, which only counts immediate deaths.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Chernobyl was a very special case. The reactor had no containment vessel -- we don't build that kind of reactors anymore (and the "old French reactors" do have containment vessels). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building Your "results of radiation throughout generations" line doesn't really make sense. Don't go into the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. That's it. You don't get much radiation from other nuclear power plants and certainly not "throughout generations". You do from radon gas in the basement in some parts of the world, you do from coal smoke (a tiny bit), and you do if you live in an area with a high background radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity And what else? Yes, the evacuation around Fukushima. They panicked and evacuated far too many :(
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. The west never built reactors that dangerous, and nobody operates reactors that dangerous (that type was fixed). Anti-nukies have this feeling that anything nuclear is categorically more dangerous than anything non-nuclear. They imagine the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to be a liefeless wasteland out of a dystopian sci-fi movie, when in reality it is a thriving wild-life reserve where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. And you are absolutely right: they evacuated way too much. In Chernobyl as well. In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Numbers don’t lie.
      - peterfirefly 3y ago
        > Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. > thriving wild-life reserve I know. > where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. I know. > In Chernobyl as well. I know. > In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. I know. > Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Absolutely agreed. > Numbers don’t lie. I never really trusted 7.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. Why did you do it then? I didn't. Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is as useless as the initial promise of safety. Some things don't happen this way. Others can still happen, and it can still end up being disastrous. There is always the human and nature factors. You just can't ignore them. Sure they are unlikely, but they still can happen and all those unlikely things that can happen to renewable sources are just by far less terrible than what can happen if you have a nuclear reactor around. This is why your number games will never end up being fruitful. People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Nuclear contamination can be rehabilitated. In fact, in 2022 all of the Fukushima exclusion zone was lifted as cleanup was completed. Chernobyl wasn't rehabilitated because Pripyat's sole reason for existing was to support the nuclear plant. So rehabilitation would be a waste of money.
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infrastructure and finally PEOPLE.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Again, people have been allowed to return since 2022. We're not just talking about soil.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad world is this supposed to be uplifting news or an argument pro nuclear? Especially with far safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives already there and being rolled out in months instead of years....madness.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.
mpweiher 3y ago
Hardly anything ever tells the whole story. But deaths is a pretty good high order bit. Whole towns have been resettled for lignite coal and for other mining activities. Not just once many, many times. And guess where the power to make those cheap Chinese solar panels comes from? Coal. So, yes almost certainly towns have had to be evacuated and abandoned, not due to solar industry accidents, but due to the solar industry working as intended. And there are other effects: https://www.csis.org/analysis/dark-spot-solar-energy-industry-forced-labor-xinjiang https://www.csis.org/analysis/dark-spot-solar-energy-industr... https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinjiang-uyghur-labor/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinj... https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/climate/electronic-marvels-turn-into-dangerous-trash-in-east-africa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/climate/electronic-marvel...

by tedivm 3y ago

Just looking at deaths doesn't really tell the whole story. There aren't a lot of towns that have had to be evacuated and abandoned due to solar industry accidents.

mpweiher 3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure 1975 Chinese Dam fails 150K deaths 4.6 million homes destroyed 11 million people displaced Number of countries getting out of hydro: 0 ( in words: zero ) Japan and Ukraine are both among the countries that signed the “tripling nuclear by 2050” pledge. My guess would be that they have the best information on the risks of nuclear.

Krasnol 3y ago
You can still build new homes on that land once it's dry. It's not contaminated with radioactivity. Imagine one of the old French reactors "going nuclear" right in the middle of dense populated Europe. It looks like a derailment and OPs argument still stands, imho. The only thing is that you can add results of radiation throughout generations, where people develop mutations and/or die early. None of those cases are in the handy graphic from above, which only counts immediate deaths.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  Chernobyl was a very special case. The reactor had no containment vessel -- we don't build that kind of reactors anymore (and the "old French reactors" do have containment vessels). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building Your "results of radiation throughout generations" line doesn't really make sense. Don't go into the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. That's it. You don't get much radiation from other nuclear power plants and certainly not "throughout generations". You do from radon gas in the basement in some parts of the world, you do from coal smoke (a tiny bit), and you do if you live in an area with a high background radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity And what else? Yes, the evacuation around Fukushima. They panicked and evacuated far too many :(
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. The west never built reactors that dangerous, and nobody operates reactors that dangerous (that type was fixed). Anti-nukies have this feeling that anything nuclear is categorically more dangerous than anything non-nuclear. They imagine the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to be a liefeless wasteland out of a dystopian sci-fi movie, when in reality it is a thriving wild-life reserve where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. And you are absolutely right: they evacuated way too much. In Chernobyl as well. In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Numbers don’t lie.
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      > Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. > thriving wild-life reserve I know. > where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. I know. > In Chernobyl as well. I know. > In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. I know. > Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Absolutely agreed. > Numbers don’t lie. I never really trusted 7.
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        > I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. Why did you do it then? I didn't. Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is as useless as the initial promise of safety. Some things don't happen this way. Others can still happen, and it can still end up being disastrous. There is always the human and nature factors. You just can't ignore them. Sure they are unlikely, but they still can happen and all those unlikely things that can happen to renewable sources are just by far less terrible than what can happen if you have a nuclear reactor around. This is why your number games will never end up being fruitful. People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Nuclear contamination can be rehabilitated. In fact, in 2022 all of the Fukushima exclusion zone was lifted as cleanup was completed. Chernobyl wasn't rehabilitated because Pripyat's sole reason for existing was to support the nuclear plant. So rehabilitation would be a waste of money.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infrastructure and finally PEOPLE.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Again, people have been allowed to return since 2022. We're not just talking about soil.
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad world is this supposed to be uplifting news or an argument pro nuclear? Especially with far safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives already there and being rolled out in months instead of years....madness.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.

mpweiher 3y ago

Hardly anything ever tells the whole story. But deaths is a pretty good high order bit. Whole towns have been resettled for lignite coal and for other mining activities. Not just once many, many times. And guess where the power to make those cheap Chinese solar panels comes from? Coal. So, yes almost certainly towns have had to be evacuated and abandoned, not due to solar industry accidents, but due to the solar industry working as intended. And there are other effects: https://www.csis.org/analysis/dark-spot-solar-energy-industry-forced-labor-xinjiang https://www.csis.org/analysis/dark-spot-solar-energy-industr... https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinjiang-uyghur-labor/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinj... https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/climate/electronic-marvels-turn-into-dangerous-trash-in-east-africa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/climate/electronic-marvel...