4 ms·

Nobody died in Fukushima, except in a bungled evacuation of the surrounding area. Maybe one person in the fullness of time. Nuclear power is literally the safes

Nobody died in Fukushima, except in a bungled evacuation of the surrounding area. Maybe one person in the fullness of time. Nuclear power is literally the safest power source in deaths per TWh - right between wind and solar. [1] We have safe nuclear power, so I'm pleased to inform you that your concern was mitigated, about 50 years ago. [edit] Also, I would point out the worst nuclear accident in history killed 4000 people according to USCEAR. The next-worst killed 1. The worst hydro accident in history (Bangqiao Dam) killed 240,000, damaged 5 million homes, displaced 10.5 million people and wiped several cities off the face of the earth - yet for some reason it doesn't share the same perception of intense danger. Interesting. [2] [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

zer00eyz 3y ago
Great, we're looking at deaths till the point of generation. 4.5 billion years, is the half life of uranium. Come back to me with stats then.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster We're going to be pouring money into that shit show for probably a 1000 years, and an exclusion zone for 20,000. So if you want to move next to Fukushima or Chernobyl you can preach safe nuclear from there, other wise stop the nonsene. The same companies that kill people with coal, and gas lines, and Power lines (lookin at you PGE) dont need to run nuclear plants. They are untrustworthy.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  This really smacks of Brandolini's law, or the "bullshit asymmetry principle" where debunking claims takes much more effort than making them. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
- mech422 3y ago
  iirc, I live near the largest nuke plant in the US. No complaints. Perhaps the issue is more with the people running the plants, then the plants themselves. Also, recycling nuke waste like many countries do cuts the amount of waste down dramatically. P.S. - we also use grey water for cooling the plant, limiting the amount of fresh water needed. Edit: According to 1, "All of the nuclear waste collected at Palo Verde over the past 30 years is stored on-site. The waste is currently stored in cement-and-steel containers that take up a space the size of a football field." - seems pretty small for a 30 year life time, maybe a couple of tons / year ? 1) https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde-generating-station-the-nations-largest-nuclear-power-plant/ https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde...
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    Lets round up its generate to 4gw Solar last year: 228gw was ADDED globally. SO about 57 plants of the size of the one near your house every year. 400 nuclear plants will give us about 2 major accidents every 50 years at current rate. We can assume this is pretty close to a constant as plants age, natural disasters happen and everything gets more complicated. Meanwhile solar is not responsive and doesn't work after dar, so needs storage. In a pure nuclear set up, you still need storage, because it isnt responsive (you can't just crank them up and down like a dimmer) ... Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... so we either need on site generation or a more complex grid, and probably because of safety, both. It's not a question of IF we have an accident but when, and more plants doesn't make them safer it just lowers the time between accidents... We aren't building more nuclear for a good reason. I does not make ANY sense to do so, the cost and complexity is too high for too little power.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - defrost 3y ago
      With the disclaimer that I'm pro solar your accident based argument is weak as it ignores all accidents in resource mining for renewable infrastructure .. which will only increase as to date renewables make up only a fraction of the energy still generated by coal which is due to be replaced. Make no mistake, accidents (death and injury) in resource mining (non nuclear) greatly outweigh the total deaths and injuries due to just uranium mining | processing and nuclear power accidents. Lithium for batteries has barely started compared to where it is headed and we already see waste storage issues (Lynas, Malaysia) for large volumes of acids and associated low level radioactive waste. Again, I'm pro renewables, but as an exploration geophysict who has worked on global mining databases I can state as fact that these (as do all things) come at a cost - and accident free is not a reality. You're making a purely emotive argument based on feels sans actual real world data.
      - 3y ago
- samtho 3y ago
  The amount of spent uranium that will need to stored is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of energy that is produced in contrast to the waste that is produced by any other non-renewable source. It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust - deeper than anything save for mining, encased in concrete, and buried over where it would be most unlikely that anything will touch it ever again.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    >>> It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us Sweden got their shit together, but they dont have much in the way of power and their site has massive cost over runs. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste... But, even underground, on the time scale were talking about, its complicated: https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-term-thinking-and-nuclear-waste/ https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-...
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      > IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) It wasn't an issue at Fukushima, it's not currently an issue in the US, and the reason Yucca Mountain isn't being developed is FUD and politics, not technical. Note that the vast majority of nuclear waste isn't high-level waste, but rather low-level - tools, clothes, etc.
- mech422 3y ago
  Sorry - it wouldn't let me reply to your last comment... >> Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... Wouldn't that be true of any power source? If you do a full shutdown, the power to run everything has to come from somewhere? (Palo Verde handle maintenance shutdowns by having 3 reactors, 2 running and 1 down for refuel/maintenance). Also, given the death tolls from any major hydro dam failing, I'd guess the numbers would be a wash (pun intended). More specifically, why would we assume things won't get safer over time? As for solar - how much space we can dedicate to it near cities could become a problem? and some places aren't really well suited to it (nor are some places suited to nuclear or hydro). According to other comments it also seems to be getting more expensive, and installs are slowing down. I don't have a problem with solar, hydro OR nuclear ... Hell, I used to live near one of those methane producing garbage dumps, IIRC. I think the future is gonna require a balance. I

zer00eyz 3y ago

Great, we're looking at deaths till the point of generation. 4.5 billion years, is the half life of uranium. Come back to me with stats then.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster We're going to be pouring money into that shit show for probably a 1000 years, and an exclusion zone for 20,000. So if you want to move next to Fukushima or Chernobyl you can preach safe nuclear from there, other wise stop the nonsene. The same companies that kill people with coal, and gas lines, and Power lines (lookin at you PGE) dont need to run nuclear plants. They are untrustworthy.

arcticbull 3y ago
This really smacks of Brandolini's law, or the "bullshit asymmetry principle" where debunking claims takes much more effort than making them. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
mech422 3y ago
iirc, I live near the largest nuke plant in the US. No complaints. Perhaps the issue is more with the people running the plants, then the plants themselves. Also, recycling nuke waste like many countries do cuts the amount of waste down dramatically. P.S. - we also use grey water for cooling the plant, limiting the amount of fresh water needed. Edit: According to 1, "All of the nuclear waste collected at Palo Verde over the past 30 years is stored on-site. The waste is currently stored in cement-and-steel containers that take up a space the size of a football field." - seems pretty small for a 30 year life time, maybe a couple of tons / year ? 1) https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde-generating-station-the-nations-largest-nuclear-power-plant/ https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde...
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  Lets round up its generate to 4gw Solar last year: 228gw was ADDED globally. SO about 57 plants of the size of the one near your house every year. 400 nuclear plants will give us about 2 major accidents every 50 years at current rate. We can assume this is pretty close to a constant as plants age, natural disasters happen and everything gets more complicated. Meanwhile solar is not responsive and doesn't work after dar, so needs storage. In a pure nuclear set up, you still need storage, because it isnt responsive (you can't just crank them up and down like a dimmer) ... Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... so we either need on site generation or a more complex grid, and probably because of safety, both. It's not a question of IF we have an accident but when, and more plants doesn't make them safer it just lowers the time between accidents... We aren't building more nuclear for a good reason. I does not make ANY sense to do so, the cost and complexity is too high for too little power.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - defrost 3y ago
    With the disclaimer that I'm pro solar your accident based argument is weak as it ignores all accidents in resource mining for renewable infrastructure .. which will only increase as to date renewables make up only a fraction of the energy still generated by coal which is due to be replaced. Make no mistake, accidents (death and injury) in resource mining (non nuclear) greatly outweigh the total deaths and injuries due to just uranium mining | processing and nuclear power accidents. Lithium for batteries has barely started compared to where it is headed and we already see waste storage issues (Lynas, Malaysia) for large volumes of acids and associated low level radioactive waste. Again, I'm pro renewables, but as an exploration geophysict who has worked on global mining databases I can state as fact that these (as do all things) come at a cost - and accident free is not a reality. You're making a purely emotive argument based on feels sans actual real world data.
    - 3y ago
samtho 3y ago
The amount of spent uranium that will need to stored is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of energy that is produced in contrast to the waste that is produced by any other non-renewable source. It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust - deeper than anything save for mining, encased in concrete, and buried over where it would be most unlikely that anything will touch it ever again.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >>> It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us Sweden got their shit together, but they dont have much in the way of power and their site has massive cost over runs. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste... But, even underground, on the time scale were talking about, its complicated: https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-term-thinking-and-nuclear-waste/ https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-...
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) It wasn't an issue at Fukushima, it's not currently an issue in the US, and the reason Yucca Mountain isn't being developed is FUD and politics, not technical. Note that the vast majority of nuclear waste isn't high-level waste, but rather low-level - tools, clothes, etc.
mech422 3y ago
Sorry - it wouldn't let me reply to your last comment... >> Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... Wouldn't that be true of any power source? If you do a full shutdown, the power to run everything has to come from somewhere? (Palo Verde handle maintenance shutdowns by having 3 reactors, 2 running and 1 down for refuel/maintenance). Also, given the death tolls from any major hydro dam failing, I'd guess the numbers would be a wash (pun intended). More specifically, why would we assume things won't get safer over time? As for solar - how much space we can dedicate to it near cities could become a problem? and some places aren't really well suited to it (nor are some places suited to nuclear or hydro). According to other comments it also seems to be getting more expensive, and installs are slowing down. I don't have a problem with solar, hydro OR nuclear ... Hell, I used to live near one of those methane producing garbage dumps, IIRC. I think the future is gonna require a balance. I