4 ms·

> 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 dam

> 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 ago
Fly-ash contains radionuclides.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  However, 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 ago
    Yes now, but not back when fission plants were first brought online.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      But 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 ago
        Because 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 ago
        The "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 ago
        Well 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.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        No, nuclear was on the ropes even before that. You're spinning a comforting story to allow you to evade unpleasant realities. I would have thought "everyone is crazy but me" would have set off red flags for you, but apparently not.
        wqaatwt 2y ago
        I’m sorry but you are the one doing the spinning. You keep putting words into my mouth and then ignoring everything else I said.. I repeated that cost (of course only if externalities, that hardly anyone was fully aware of back in the 80s, are excluded) was the primary reason why nuclear failed. Do you really think that public opinion had no impact and did not accelerate it, though? > "everyone is crazy but me" Is that how you feel? Must be interesting..
        pfdietz 2y ago
        I think public opinion had nothing to do with it. You observe that there was a segment of public against it, but you have not connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect. We see plans for nuclear go up and down based on economic conditions. Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that. The nuclear renaissance was going great when natural gas seemed like it was running out. It collapsed when fracking made gas cheap again. Today there's concern for AI power demand and nuclear seems to be getting traction. Public opinion isn't driving any of that.
touisteur 2y ago
I'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 ago
  I 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 ago
      Obviously I implied [mainstream/non-fringe] estimate.
      - natmaka 2y ago
        AFAIK 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

actionfromafar 2y ago

Fly-ash contains radionuclides.

pfdietz 2y ago
However, 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 ago
  Yes now, but not back when fission plants were first brought online.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    But 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 ago
      Because 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 ago
        The "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 ago
        Well 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.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        No, nuclear was on the ropes even before that. You're spinning a comforting story to allow you to evade unpleasant realities. I would have thought "everyone is crazy but me" would have set off red flags for you, but apparently not.
        wqaatwt 2y ago
        I’m sorry but you are the one doing the spinning. You keep putting words into my mouth and then ignoring everything else I said.. I repeated that cost (of course only if externalities, that hardly anyone was fully aware of back in the 80s, are excluded) was the primary reason why nuclear failed. Do you really think that public opinion had no impact and did not accelerate it, though? > "everyone is crazy but me" Is that how you feel? Must be interesting..
        pfdietz 2y ago
        I think public opinion had nothing to do with it. You observe that there was a segment of public against it, but you have not connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect. We see plans for nuclear go up and down based on economic conditions. Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that. The nuclear renaissance was going great when natural gas seemed like it was running out. It collapsed when fracking made gas cheap again. Today there's concern for AI power demand and nuclear seems to be getting traction. Public opinion isn't driving any of that.

touisteur 2y ago

I'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 ago
I 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 ago
    Obviously I implied [mainstream/non-fringe] estimate.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      AFAIK 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