4 ms·

It's also a good example of how public perception and actual stats often differ significantly. If you asked people whether driving or flying were safer, I suspe

by CM30 2y ago

It's also a good example of how public perception and actual stats often differ significantly. If you asked people whether driving or flying were safer, I suspect most would say the former. But statistically speaking, the latter is so much safer it's almost unreal, it's just that the worst case scenarios get a lot more attention there when they do happen. That said, it is worth noting that an increased focus on safety comes with trade offs. If everything was held to aircraft standards of safety, then every project under the sun would also take significantly longer, cost significantly more and probably be less user friendly for the end user. But that doesn't happen, because a less safe system is often 'good enough' for other fields.

eru 2y ago
Apart from nuclear power: that's held to even higher safety standards than flying. With exactly the cost overruns and schedule delays you predict.
- Arnt 2y ago
  I think you mean that nuclear power generators are required to take extremely expensive safety measures when they handle significant amounts of radioactive materials (several thick concrete walls around the nuclear material, regular thorough inspection of the walls, and so on and so forth). Planes are not required to do that. However, it's a bit unfair, because the safety regulations for radioactive materials prohibit air transport of such amounts. You're saying that "handle with extreme care" is a higher safety standard than "doing that is forbidden".
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Apart from nuclear power: that's held to even higher safety standards than flying. And with good reason. Fukushima rendered large amounts of land uninhabitable for years, Chernobyl to this very day impacts fungi and wild pig meat in places as far away as Bavaria - and that's just the two fatal accident scenarios. On top of that come all the other incidents - the cleanup of Sellafield for example will cost > 130 billion pounds [1], a result of decades of negligence. Nuclear power is only financially viable when taxpayers of all the countries surrounding a NPP pick up the bill in the disaster case. Would every NPP be required to obtain actual insurance to account for disasters, it would be among the most expensive ways to generate power. In contrast, the most damage that a runaway airplane can cause is a few thousand deaths, by piloting it into a skyscraper. [1] https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1058944/sellafield-nuclear-waste-dump-costs-surge-to-136bn-leaving-questions-over-value-1058944.html https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1058944/...
  - eru 2y ago
    > And with good reason. Not really. The number of deaths per Joule is orders of magnitude lower for nuclear than for eg coal; and that includes all the infamous nuclear disasters like the one in Chernobyl. But we still allow coal fired power plants. We could drop the cost for nuclear power, by lowering the safety standards to the same as that for eg natural gas or photovoltaic. > Would every NPP be required to obtain actual insurance to account for disasters, it would be among the most expensive ways to generate power. I doubt it; but I am in favour of internalising externalities, like when coal plants emit pollutants, or for nuclear powers plants, like in your examples. Bonds and insurance are a way to make sure those rare risky externalities are also paid for.
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      > Not really. The number of deaths per Joule is orders of magnitude lower for nuclear than for eg coal; and that includes all the infamous nuclear disasters like the one in Chernobyl. But we still allow coal fired power plants. It's not just about the deaths! Factor in the amount of land contaminated in a worst-case scenario and the duration of such a contamination and suddenly the entire comparison shifts in its result. A NPP blowing up or getting damaged enough to spew radiation in a densely settled Western country impacts potentially hundreds of millions of people for decades. A coal plant blowing up? No one cares, maybe a few hundred people die and a few thousand lose their jobs - even the biggest coal power plant in Poland employs 8.000 people [1]. [1] https://www.kulturaustausch.de/en/issues/issue-iii-2021/white-smoke-on-the-horizon/ https://www.kulturaustausch.de/en/issues/issue-iii-2021/whit...
      - eru 2y ago
        Coal contaminates lots more land in the usual course of operation. No worst case scenario required, even though they ain't pretty. (Even if you just look at radioactive contamination only. Coal ash is so high volume that even just the radioactive traces in it add up. But honestly, radioactivity is probably the least of your worries with coal.)
franciscop 2y ago
I've tried asking normal people (non-tech) in the past or talking about transportation and it seems pretty clear everyone knows that flying is much safer.
jorisboris 2y ago
What's more surprising is that despite this trade off it's still possible to fly for 50 dollars or less at moments. So I don't feel the trade-off made hinders the economic viability
__m 2y ago
I'd say the activity of flying is more dangerous unless you have the training of a commercial pilot, see the accident rate of general aviation

by CM30 2y ago

eru 2y ago

Apart from nuclear power: that's held to even higher safety standards than flying. With exactly the cost overruns and schedule delays you predict.

Arnt 2y ago
I think you mean that nuclear power generators are required to take extremely expensive safety measures when they handle significant amounts of radioactive materials (several thick concrete walls around the nuclear material, regular thorough inspection of the walls, and so on and so forth). Planes are not required to do that. However, it's a bit unfair, because the safety regulations for radioactive materials prohibit air transport of such amounts. You're saying that "handle with extreme care" is a higher safety standard than "doing that is forbidden".
mschuster91 2y ago
> Apart from nuclear power: that's held to even higher safety standards than flying. And with good reason. Fukushima rendered large amounts of land uninhabitable for years, Chernobyl to this very day impacts fungi and wild pig meat in places as far away as Bavaria - and that's just the two fatal accident scenarios. On top of that come all the other incidents - the cleanup of Sellafield for example will cost > 130 billion pounds [1], a result of decades of negligence. Nuclear power is only financially viable when taxpayers of all the countries surrounding a NPP pick up the bill in the disaster case. Would every NPP be required to obtain actual insurance to account for disasters, it would be among the most expensive ways to generate power. In contrast, the most damage that a runaway airplane can cause is a few thousand deaths, by piloting it into a skyscraper. [1] https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1058944/sellafield-nuclear-waste-dump-costs-surge-to-136bn-leaving-questions-over-value-1058944.html https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1058944/...
- eru 2y ago
  > And with good reason. Not really. The number of deaths per Joule is orders of magnitude lower for nuclear than for eg coal; and that includes all the infamous nuclear disasters like the one in Chernobyl. But we still allow coal fired power plants. We could drop the cost for nuclear power, by lowering the safety standards to the same as that for eg natural gas or photovoltaic. > Would every NPP be required to obtain actual insurance to account for disasters, it would be among the most expensive ways to generate power. I doubt it; but I am in favour of internalising externalities, like when coal plants emit pollutants, or for nuclear powers plants, like in your examples. Bonds and insurance are a way to make sure those rare risky externalities are also paid for.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Not really. The number of deaths per Joule is orders of magnitude lower for nuclear than for eg coal; and that includes all the infamous nuclear disasters like the one in Chernobyl. But we still allow coal fired power plants. It's not just about the deaths! Factor in the amount of land contaminated in a worst-case scenario and the duration of such a contamination and suddenly the entire comparison shifts in its result. A NPP blowing up or getting damaged enough to spew radiation in a densely settled Western country impacts potentially hundreds of millions of people for decades. A coal plant blowing up? No one cares, maybe a few hundred people die and a few thousand lose their jobs - even the biggest coal power plant in Poland employs 8.000 people [1]. [1] https://www.kulturaustausch.de/en/issues/issue-iii-2021/white-smoke-on-the-horizon/ https://www.kulturaustausch.de/en/issues/issue-iii-2021/whit...
    - eru 2y ago
      Coal contaminates lots more land in the usual course of operation. No worst case scenario required, even though they ain't pretty. (Even if you just look at radioactive contamination only. Coal ash is so high volume that even just the radioactive traces in it add up. But honestly, radioactivity is probably the least of your worries with coal.)

franciscop 2y ago

I've tried asking normal people (non-tech) in the past or talking about transportation and it seems pretty clear everyone knows that flying is much safer.

jorisboris 2y ago

What's more surprising is that despite this trade off it's still possible to fly for 50 dollars or less at moments. So I don't feel the trade-off made hinders the economic viability

__m 2y ago

I'd say the activity of flying is more dangerous unless you have the training of a commercial pilot, see the accident rate of general aviation