3 ms·

> Apart from nuclear power: that's held to even higher safety standards than flying. And with good reason. Fukushima rendered large amounts of land uninhabitab

> 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.)
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      > Coal contaminates lots more land in the usual course of operation. I agree an open lignite pit isn't the best of all sights to have around... but they displace a few thousand people at most, and at least in Germany they are paid off handsomely for their cooperation. Fukushima in contrast had half a million people displaced at its peak, many of them even had to leave their pets behind to fend for themselves. > Coal ash is so high volume that even just the radioactive traces in it add up Agreed, but even that pales against the waste that uranium mines produce - and to make it worse, we at least have some sort of audit and oversight capability over domestic mines, but for uranium mines the situation is much more complex. Out of the relevant producers [1], not even 20% come from stable, developed and relatively corruption free Western nations (Australia, Canada). We just ignore the issues with uranium because we don't have them in front of our doors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...

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.)
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Coal contaminates lots more land in the usual course of operation. I agree an open lignite pit isn't the best of all sights to have around... but they displace a few thousand people at most, and at least in Germany they are paid off handsomely for their cooperation. Fukushima in contrast had half a million people displaced at its peak, many of them even had to leave their pets behind to fend for themselves. > Coal ash is so high volume that even just the radioactive traces in it add up Agreed, but even that pales against the waste that uranium mines produce - and to make it worse, we at least have some sort of audit and oversight capability over domestic mines, but for uranium mines the situation is much more complex. Out of the relevant producers [1], not even 20% come from stable, developed and relatively corruption free Western nations (Australia, Canada). We just ignore the issues with uranium because we don't have them in front of our doors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...