5 ms·
To be fair people were fine with multiple Chernobyl’s amount of damage every years from burning coal. And other disasters like Three Miles Island very insignif
by wqaatwt 2y ago
To be fair people were fine with multiple Chernobyl’s amount of damage every years from burning coal.
And other disasters like Three Miles Island very insignificant.
- pbronez 2y ago> multiple Chernobyl’s amount of damage every years from burning coal. Do you have a source for that? I'd be very interested in a study that quantifies the damage of coal plants in terms of famous nuclear disasters.
- actionfromafar 2y agoFly-ash contains radionuclides.
- pfdietz 2y agoHowever, 99% of fly ash is captured in electrostatic precipitators and filters. Calculations that include the radionuclides in the captured ash are not being honest.
- actionfromafar 2y agoYes now, but not back when fission plants were first brought online.
- pfdietz 2y agoBut we can ask: if this is the important issue justifying nuclear, which is more cost effective: adding pollution control to coal plants, or building nuclear plants? If it's not the important issue justifying nuclear over coal, why bring it up?
- wqaatwt 2y agoBecause my original comment was about the 80s? Nuclear was the only viable green option back then. It failed because of mass psychosis and because it was more expensive than coal and gas. Of course it’s too late now. But had nuclear plant construction continued to grow at the same pace as in the 60s and 70s CO2 emissions from power generation would have be been solved by the 2000s. > adding pollution control to coal plants Even if it was 100% effective that would do nothing to slow down climate change.
- pfdietz 2y agoThe "mass psychosis" theory is comforting to the zealot, but not in accordance with the facts. Nuclear failed for economic reasons. In the US, these reasons included: cost escalation (even before TMI), moderation of what had seem inexorable growth in electricity demand that increased risk, and sudden introduction of new competition (non-utility generation unleashed by PURPA) that soaked up what demand growth there was.
- wqaatwt 2y agoWell yes, I did mention cost (of course only if we exclude most externalities) which was the primary longterm factor. But the mass psychosis after Three Mile Island and then Chernobyl made nuclear expansion very expensive politically and financially (of course not saying that all of the additional safety regulations which inflated costs were not necessary). It would be rather silly to claim that it didn’t tip the scales at all.
- touisteur 2y agoI've always found xkcd's radiation chart interesting: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ where it talks about coal vs nuclear plant at the beginning. Maybe his sources would help. ISTR that lignite would often be a bit radioactive and burning so much of it would spread it through leftover emissions ? If you find a proper source, I'm interested too.
- wqaatwt 2y agoI didn’t mean radiation specifically. Rather overall damage due to pollution compared to the casualties in Chernobyl and Fukushima. e.g. NIH estimates 460k excess deaths (just in the US alone) between 1999 and 2020 were caused by emission from coal plants. And that’s the period when coal became relatively “clean”. So it must have been much worse back in the 70s and 80s. The highest estimate for Chernobyl is 60,000. But 16,000 is probably more realistic.
- natmaka 2y ago> The highest estimate for Chernobyl is 60,000 Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
- wqaatwt 2y agoObviously I implied [mainstream/non-fringe] estimate.
- natmaka 2y agoAFAIK it is a well-known estimation, and 'fringe' may be considered weird given its main author's pedigree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
- 2y ago