107 ms·

This is nonsense. If you're going to cite arbitrary "N+1 days of bad weather" then I can cite "N+1 severe natural disasters" where the nuclear reactor is engine

This is nonsense. If you're going to cite arbitrary "N+1 days of bad weather" then I can cite "N+1 severe natural disasters" where the nuclear reactor is engineered to withstand N. And unlike the theoretical "disaster" due to extended bad weather taking renewables down, this has actually happened in recent memory with Fukushima. And this was a true disaster, not just a power outage. Nuclear is not safe. Every time proponents say "new designs are safe" eventually a new disaster proves this lie. Then the nuclear proponents say "oh well that was an old design, new designs are safe!" Nuclear is too expensive. Renewables even with storage are way cheaper! We can way over build renewables. We can distribute them, because "bad weather" is regional. All for much cheaper than nuclear. Stop pushing this out-dated, unsafe and expensive technology. Its time has passed.

edmundsauto 2y ago
To be fair, the unsafe designs are all 50 years old because of FUD from incidents that are also generally pretty old. I’m not sure it’s comparable to modern designs - this isn’t a “new iPhone every year” deal.
- greenthrow 2y ago
  Get out of here with this lie. Before the disaster, nuclear proponents cited Fukushima as an example of how safe modern nuclear was.
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    I think everyone knew the Mark I boiling water reactors designed in the 1960s was not a “safe by default” design. Open to receipts if folks with some understanding of nuclear designs were on record before that touting its safety.
    - greenthrow 2y ago
      "Citation needed" is the lamest response. I am not your personal Google assistant. Nuclear proponents just like you cited Fukushima as a hallmark of reliability to "disprove" its dangers to me. There were articles highlighting it. These are obviously hard to find now with the digital rot of the last decade. Sorry I didn't print out copies to hand out to you many years later.
      - edmundsauto 2y ago
        People touted the safety of cars in the 1920s. Compared to today’s standards, they were wildly unsafe. The mere fact people were wrong before doesn’t mean they are wrong today. “What some people once said” is not as strong an argument as “designs are demonstrably better engineered” That doesn’t mean there is no risk. It’s still ok to be scared of nuclear power for new unknown reasons. But let’s not pretend that designs aren’t wildly better now.
Ukv 2y ago
> Nuclear is not safe Nothing is 100.0% safe - but as far as I can find nuclear comes incredibly close[0] even when including Chernobyl and Fukushima. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- janice1999 2y ago
  Taking about just deaths is misleading. Accidents in other energy sources don't render 1,000 square miles of land uninhabitable.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    In terms of single-incident, I believe hydro takes the lead due to the Banqiao Dam failure (floods over 12,000 square kilometers killing ~30k directly then ~100k more from water contamination and famine). But even that's still dwarfed by the more gradual impact of climate change on the planet from fossil fuels.
  - 0x000xca0xfe 2y ago
    Dam failures absolutely destroy vast areas and can contaminate them with oil and gasoline by flooding settlements. In fact hydroelectric power has killed a surprising amount of people.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > Accidents in other energy sources don't render 1,000 square miles of land uninhabitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis The grid came within minutes of overloading and shutting down completely, which would have required a slow and costly black start. That would have rendered 268,596 square miles uninhabitable, at least for several weeks plus recovery time. How about https://www.ferc.gov/media/winter-storm-elliott-report-inquiry-bulk-power-system-operations-during-december-2022 https://www.ferc.gov/media/winter-storm-elliott-report-inqui... ?
- greenthrow 2y ago
  Focusing on deaths is a nice trick of the nuclear industry because the largest negative impacts of their disasters and even non-disaster costs of operation are still terrible but do not manifest as immediate deaths.

edmundsauto 2y ago

To be fair, the unsafe designs are all 50 years old because of FUD from incidents that are also generally pretty old. I’m not sure it’s comparable to modern designs - this isn’t a “new iPhone every year” deal.

greenthrow 2y ago
Get out of here with this lie. Before the disaster, nuclear proponents cited Fukushima as an example of how safe modern nuclear was.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  I think everyone knew the Mark I boiling water reactors designed in the 1960s was not a “safe by default” design. Open to receipts if folks with some understanding of nuclear designs were on record before that touting its safety.
  - greenthrow 2y ago
    "Citation needed" is the lamest response. I am not your personal Google assistant. Nuclear proponents just like you cited Fukushima as a hallmark of reliability to "disprove" its dangers to me. There were articles highlighting it. These are obviously hard to find now with the digital rot of the last decade. Sorry I didn't print out copies to hand out to you many years later.
    - edmundsauto 2y ago
      People touted the safety of cars in the 1920s. Compared to today’s standards, they were wildly unsafe. The mere fact people were wrong before doesn’t mean they are wrong today. “What some people once said” is not as strong an argument as “designs are demonstrably better engineered” That doesn’t mean there is no risk. It’s still ok to be scared of nuclear power for new unknown reasons. But let’s not pretend that designs aren’t wildly better now.

Ukv 2y ago

> Nuclear is not safe Nothing is 100.0% safe - but as far as I can find nuclear comes incredibly close[0] even when including Chernobyl and Fukushima. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

janice1999 2y ago
Taking about just deaths is misleading. Accidents in other energy sources don't render 1,000 square miles of land uninhabitable.
- Ukv 2y ago
  In terms of single-incident, I believe hydro takes the lead due to the Banqiao Dam failure (floods over 12,000 square kilometers killing ~30k directly then ~100k more from water contamination and famine). But even that's still dwarfed by the more gradual impact of climate change on the planet from fossil fuels.
- 0x000xca0xfe 2y ago
  Dam failures absolutely destroy vast areas and can contaminate them with oil and gasoline by flooding settlements. In fact hydroelectric power has killed a surprising amount of people.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > Accidents in other energy sources don't render 1,000 square miles of land uninhabitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis The grid came within minutes of overloading and shutting down completely, which would have required a slow and costly black start. That would have rendered 268,596 square miles uninhabitable, at least for several weeks plus recovery time. How about https://www.ferc.gov/media/winter-storm-elliott-report-inquiry-bulk-power-system-operations-during-december-2022 https://www.ferc.gov/media/winter-storm-elliott-report-inqui... ?
greenthrow 2y ago
Focusing on deaths is a nice trick of the nuclear industry because the largest negative impacts of their disasters and even non-disaster costs of operation are still terrible but do not manifest as immediate deaths.