3 ms·

A study that made very questionable assumptions. Links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https:

by GJim 2y ago

A study that made very questionable assumptions. Links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk... Regardless, even if deaths were in the 100's, the deaths per GWh remain safer than that of coal and even, gasp! hydroelectric. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

threeseed 2y ago
Why not just skip nuclear then and go straight for solar which is the safest: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Also happens to be by far the cheapest.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  For power production, I agree, but you need batteries to be able to replace carbon or nuclear energy sources. Honestly, I don't know about the cost of adding batteries to a major solar installation.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Solar and batteries is much cheaper than nuclear.
- ericd 2y ago
  The intermittency is really bad/hard to deal with unless you have a large geographic distribution with long distance transmission that can handle that level of power. Even if you can handle weeklong cloudy stints, winter is especially rough due to shorter and less intense sun with much longer shadows potentially knocking out whole strings. Right now our home array gets maybe 4-6 hours of reasonably good generation per day, and it’s simultaneously the highest amount of load we see all year, due to heating needs. We could try to overpanel so that winter load is met, and overcast generation is more sufficient, but it’s still challenging and would need an extreme amount of energy storage and land.
myrmidon 2y ago
The article you quoted also states an estimate of ~1600 deaths from the evacutation alone, and widespread rise of depression, anxiety and stress disorders among the affected population (also suicides). Also note that death per GWh on hydroelectricity are complete BS. This is easy to get wrong, but these are typically dominated by deaths from floods and dam failures (which would've happened regardless of hydroelectric use, and the dams would've been required for flood control without having turbines installed, too). I think environmentalists do have a strong point here: If a country like Japan (known for stability and diligence) can not be trusted to be able to prevent meltdowns (flooding was a known risk after all), how could you ever suggest them as primary power source in countries where regulation and monitoring would be a corrupt shitshow, like Italy, Spain, Africa etc?
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  You raise some interesting points. As I understand, the Three Gorges dam has two goals: 1) control flooding and 2) produce power. If anything, it might be said that Three Gorges has negative death rate associated with it, because it has prevented so many devastating floods. Italy/Spain is so corrupt/incompetent to run nuclear power plants? Also, sarcastically, Africa is not a country, but 50 countries with a wide variety of development.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    > Italy/Spain is so corrupt/incompetent to run nuclear power plants? Yes absolutely. Japan has a much more respectable culture regarding safety/diligence, and basically every italian citizen will agree on that. If Japan had to evacuate one of ~50 reactor sites within a lifetime, then it seems ill-avised for an italian citizen to let current government (which is pretty likely to flip-flop across the political spectrum at basically double the rate of normal elections in the first place) start building a reactor in the backyard. Note that actual numbers reflect this: Last Italian referendum about nuclear power was 94% (!!) against (admittedly shortly after Fukushima). > Also, sarcastically, Africa is not a country, but 50 countries with a wide variety of development. I know, my statement is about all of them. Operating nuclear plants requires long-term (centuries, not decades) trust in safety culture, regulators and operating companies. Which african nation would you suggest as a paragon for nuclearization? Egypt? South Africa? (note: this is a trick suggestion; electrical power management in South Africa is the most embarassing, corrupt shitshow you could ever imagine in a somewhat industrialized state).
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Hydroelectric dams when they fail kill the most people. Nuclear plants when they fail, cost the most money to deal with. Money is, at some level of abstraction, fungible with lives saved, which is why cheap to deploy, and low direct death, catastrophe proof, wind and solar (mostly solar) are the future.

by GJim 2y ago

threeseed 2y ago

Why not just skip nuclear then and go straight for solar which is the safest: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Also happens to be by far the cheapest.

throwaway2037 2y ago
For power production, I agree, but you need batteries to be able to replace carbon or nuclear energy sources. Honestly, I don't know about the cost of adding batteries to a major solar installation.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Solar and batteries is much cheaper than nuclear.
ericd 2y ago
The intermittency is really bad/hard to deal with unless you have a large geographic distribution with long distance transmission that can handle that level of power. Even if you can handle weeklong cloudy stints, winter is especially rough due to shorter and less intense sun with much longer shadows potentially knocking out whole strings. Right now our home array gets maybe 4-6 hours of reasonably good generation per day, and it’s simultaneously the highest amount of load we see all year, due to heating needs. We could try to overpanel so that winter load is met, and overcast generation is more sufficient, but it’s still challenging and would need an extreme amount of energy storage and land.

myrmidon 2y ago

The article you quoted also states an estimate of ~1600 deaths from the evacutation alone, and widespread rise of depression, anxiety and stress disorders among the affected population (also suicides). Also note that death per GWh on hydroelectricity are complete BS. This is easy to get wrong, but these are typically dominated by deaths from floods and dam failures (which would've happened regardless of hydroelectric use, and the dams would've been required for flood control without having turbines installed, too). I think environmentalists do have a strong point here: If a country like Japan (known for stability and diligence) can not be trusted to be able to prevent meltdowns (flooding was a known risk after all), how could you ever suggest them as primary power source in countries where regulation and monitoring would be a corrupt shitshow, like Italy, Spain, Africa etc?

throwaway2037 2y ago
You raise some interesting points. As I understand, the Three Gorges dam has two goals: 1) control flooding and 2) produce power. If anything, it might be said that Three Gorges has negative death rate associated with it, because it has prevented so many devastating floods. Italy/Spain is so corrupt/incompetent to run nuclear power plants? Also, sarcastically, Africa is not a country, but 50 countries with a wide variety of development.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  > Italy/Spain is so corrupt/incompetent to run nuclear power plants? Yes absolutely. Japan has a much more respectable culture regarding safety/diligence, and basically every italian citizen will agree on that. If Japan had to evacuate one of ~50 reactor sites within a lifetime, then it seems ill-avised for an italian citizen to let current government (which is pretty likely to flip-flop across the political spectrum at basically double the rate of normal elections in the first place) start building a reactor in the backyard. Note that actual numbers reflect this: Last Italian referendum about nuclear power was 94% (!!) against (admittedly shortly after Fukushima). > Also, sarcastically, Africa is not a country, but 50 countries with a wide variety of development. I know, my statement is about all of them. Operating nuclear plants requires long-term (centuries, not decades) trust in safety culture, regulators and operating companies. Which african nation would you suggest as a paragon for nuclearization? Egypt? South Africa? (note: this is a trick suggestion; electrical power management in South Africa is the most embarassing, corrupt shitshow you could ever imagine in a somewhat industrialized state).

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Hydroelectric dams when they fail kill the most people. Nuclear plants when they fail, cost the most money to deal with. Money is, at some level of abstraction, fungible with lives saved, which is why cheap to deploy, and low direct death, catastrophe proof, wind and solar (mostly solar) are the future.