3 ms·
Early in the piece it makes the fairly standard pro-nuclear claim that nuclear is "... historically been among the safest forms of power generation" [1]. It bas
by jmyeet 3y ago
Early in the piece it makes the fairly standard pro-nuclear claim that nuclear is "... historically been among the safest forms of power generation" [1]. It bases this claim on three criteria: (1) air pollution (2) accidents and (3) greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions is an obvious win. But let's look at the other 2. Both are quantified in terms of deaths, which is the most favorable metric to nuclear because it says nothing about clean up costs and ecological or environmental damage.
Case in point: almost 40 years later, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone is still quite literally 1000 square miles.
A worse example (for the nuclear industry) is the Fukushima clean up costs. The core is still incredibly dangerous and will continue to be probably for centuries. It needs to be actively cooled. This feels a bunch of tanks with radioactive water that is expensive to treat and controversial to release back into the ocean once its deemed "safe". We have no way of removing the core so this will continue for decades to come, possibly over a century.
Fukushima will cost billions in maintenance for decades to come, so far has cost >$70 billionn and will likely approach $1 trillion byh the time it's all over [2].
Now, consider US nuclear power regulation. The Price-Anderson Act limits liability for nuclear power incidents to $500 million per site with a separate total ($10 billion?) per year [3]. The industry has a self-insurance fund to pay for disasters like these but the size of that Fukushima clean up cost to date would have exceeded that multiple times already.
So who picks up the check? The government. Nuclear power simply transfers wealth to private industry while private industry assumes almost none of the risk. We would need to trust such companies to maintain and operate plants safely when we all know that economic incentives will be to cutback on safety, inspections and maintenance to maintain and increase profits.
That's why nuclear power is a terrible idea.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
[2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...
[3]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821#:~:text=P.L.%20109%2D58%20set%20the,the%20limit%20to%20%2416.6%20billion https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821#:~:te....
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lokar 3y agoThe fact that the industry is only (possibly) economically feasible with this limit on liability tells you everything you need to know.
- Mawr 3y agoThe numbers you bring up are insignificant at the scales involved. > Case in point: almost 40 years later, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone is still quite literally 1000 square miles. Whole 1000 square miles? Looks like the habitable area of Earth is 24,642,757 square miles. That only leaves us with 24,642,757 - 1,000 = 24,641,757 square miles to work with. We are doomed. > Fukushima will cost billions in maintenance for decades to come, so far has cost >$70 billionn and will likely approach $1 trillion byh the time it's all over [2]. That's it? "The United States' reliance on coal to generate almost half of its electricity, costs the economy about $345 billion a year in hidden expenses not borne by miners or utilities, including health problems in mining communities and pollution around power plants, a study found." [1] "[...] in the United States, particle pollution from existing coal power plants is expected to cause some 13,200 premature deaths in 2010, as well as 9,700 additional hospitalizations and some 20,000 heart attacks. [...] The report found that the total monetized value of these adverse health impacts add up to more than $100 billion per year." [2] "Air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil was responsible for 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, a staggering one in five of all people who died that year, new research has found." [3] "Between 1999 and 2020, 460,000 deaths among people who got health coverage through Medicare were attributable to coal-fired plants, the new [US] study showed." [4] [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-coal-study/coals-hidden-costs-top-345-billion-in-u-s-study-idUSN1628366220110216/ https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-coal-study/coals-hidden-... [2]: https://www.gem.wiki/Health_costs_of_coal_plants https://www.gem.wiki/Health_costs_of_coal_plants [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f... [4]: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/23/health/coal-fired-plants-kill-more-people-particle-pollution/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/23/health/coal-fired-plants-..., https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf4915 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf4915