4 ms·

And then there's coal. The difference between nuclear and coal is that when nuclear has a horrible accident, it kills fewer people than coal kills as part of it

And then there's coal. The difference between nuclear and coal is that when nuclear has a horrible accident, it kills fewer people than coal kills as part of its normal expected operation.

immibis 1y ago
The difference between nuclear and coal is that when nuclear has a horrible accident, it kills as many people right here and makes as much land uninhabitable right here as coal does in our enemy countries within its normal expected operation.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Our enemy countries are West Virginia and Pennsylvania?
- tedk-42 1y ago
  Except for Russia, where else have deaths + land issues happened?
  - Retric 1y ago
    Not a commercial reactor but US lost 3 people trying to hand operate a small reactor with minimal safety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 “On Tuesday, January 3, 1961, SL-1 was being prepared for restart after a shutdown of 11 days over the holidays. Maintenance procedures required that rods be manually withdrawn a few inches to reconnect each one to its drive mechanism. At 9:01 pm MST, Rod 9 was suddenly withdrawn too far, causing SL-1 to go prompt critical instantly. In four milliseconds, the heat generated by the resulting enormous power excursion caused fuel inside the core to melt and to explosively vaporize.” The industry didn’t just randomly get so risk averse there where a lot of meltdowns and other issues over time.
    - peterfirefly 1y ago
      Do stupid things and stupid things will happen. There are plenty of similarly stupid accidents on stupidly run construction sites and chemical plants all the time. Also lots of accidents with trains, lots of accidents with temperamental chemicals. Take this stupid accident, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic#2007_Scaled_Composites_fuel_tank_testing_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic#2007_Scaled_Co... > In July 2007, three Scaled Composites employees were killed and three critically injured at the Mojave spaceport while testing components of the rocket motor for SpaceShipTwo. An explosion occurred during a cold fire test, which involved nitrous oxide flowing through fuel injectors. The procedure had been expected to be safe. N2O is very good oxidizer + it's a molecule that can fall apart (and turn into N2 and O2) in a very exothermic way if you look at it wrong. Oops. Back to SL-1. Nobody was killed by radiation. They were killed by things hitting them hard from the explosion. > The effort to minimize the size of the core gave an abnormally-large reactivity worth to Rod 9, the center control rod. > One of the required maintenance procedures called for Rod 9 to be manually withdrawn about four inches (10 cm) in order to attach it to the automated control mechanism from which it had been disconnected. Post-accident calculations, as well as examination of scratches on Rod 9, estimate that it had actually been withdrawn about twenty inches (51 cm), causing the reactor to go prompt critical and triggering the steam explosion. and: > At SL-1, control rods would sometimes get stuck in the control rod channel. Numerous procedures were conducted to evaluate control rods to ensure they were operating properly. There were rod drop tests and scram tests of each rod, in addition to periodic rod exercising and rod withdrawals for normal operation. From February 1959 to November 18, 1960, there were 40 cases of a stuck control rod for scram and rod drop tests and about a 2.5% failure rate. From November 18 to December 23, 1960, there was a dramatic increase in stuck rods, with 23 in that time period and a 13.0% failure rate. Besides these test failures, there were an additional 21 rod-sticking incidents from February 1959 to December 1960; four of these had occurred in the last month of operation during routine rod withdrawal. Rod 9 had the best operational performance record even though it was operated more frequently than any of the other rods. That is insane.
      - immibis 1y ago
        > Back to SL-1. Nobody was killed by radiation. They were killed by things hitting them hard from the explosion. What's the relevance of this?
- Natsu 1y ago
  Meltdowns aren't physically possible if we're building newer types of plants, so there can't be a new Chernobyl or even Fukushima if we're using modern types of passively cooled plants.
  - Retric 1y ago
    There’s generally significant costs and asterisks around such claims. You’re much better off paying attention to site placement than trying to design something to safety handle getting covered in several meters of volcanic ash Pompeii style.
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
The great thing is that coal is not the alternative in 2025. Renewables are forcing enormous amounts of coals and fossil gas off grids around the world as we speak.
- tempodox 1y ago
  > coal is not the alternative in 2025. Except in uncle Donald’s kingdom with “America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry” (yes, seriously): https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reinvigorating-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry-and-amending-executive-order-14241/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/rein...
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Lets come back if that leads to an increase of coal usage instead of being posturing like most else they do. Coal has been uncompetitive since the advent of the CCGT plant and was stagnating long before the fracking boom.
- DennisP 1y ago
  Yes, and in terms of overall deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is similar to renewables.
- opo 1y ago
  >The great thing is that coal is not the alternative in 2025. Unfortunately, there is a country that shut down nuclear power plants while they still have operating coal plants. Over time, coal use is declining in Germany, but that isn't the story so far in 2025: >…The share of electricity produced with fossil fuels in Germany increased by ten percent between January and the end of June 2025, compared to the same period one year before, while power production from renewables declined by almost six percent, the country’s statistical office >… Coal-fired power production increased 9.3 percent, while electricity production from fossil gas increased by 11.6 percent. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-production-germany-increased-10-first-half-2025 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-prod... Shutting nuclear power plants down when you are still burning coal is almost unbelievable... I don’t think future generations will look kindly on countries who shut down a clean form of power while they still are running the most dangerous and dirty form of power generation ever created.

And then there's coal. The difference between nuclear and coal is that when nuclear has a horrible accident, it kills fewer people than coal kills as part of its normal expected operation.

immibis 1y ago

The difference between nuclear and coal is that when nuclear has a horrible accident, it kills as many people right here and makes as much land uninhabitable right here as coal does in our enemy countries within its normal expected operation.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Our enemy countries are West Virginia and Pennsylvania?
tedk-42 1y ago
Except for Russia, where else have deaths + land issues happened?
- Retric 1y ago
  Not a commercial reactor but US lost 3 people trying to hand operate a small reactor with minimal safety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 “On Tuesday, January 3, 1961, SL-1 was being prepared for restart after a shutdown of 11 days over the holidays. Maintenance procedures required that rods be manually withdrawn a few inches to reconnect each one to its drive mechanism. At 9:01 pm MST, Rod 9 was suddenly withdrawn too far, causing SL-1 to go prompt critical instantly. In four milliseconds, the heat generated by the resulting enormous power excursion caused fuel inside the core to melt and to explosively vaporize.” The industry didn’t just randomly get so risk averse there where a lot of meltdowns and other issues over time.
  - peterfirefly 1y ago
    Do stupid things and stupid things will happen. There are plenty of similarly stupid accidents on stupidly run construction sites and chemical plants all the time. Also lots of accidents with trains, lots of accidents with temperamental chemicals. Take this stupid accident, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic#2007_Scaled_Composites_fuel_tank_testing_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic#2007_Scaled_Co... > In July 2007, three Scaled Composites employees were killed and three critically injured at the Mojave spaceport while testing components of the rocket motor for SpaceShipTwo. An explosion occurred during a cold fire test, which involved nitrous oxide flowing through fuel injectors. The procedure had been expected to be safe. N2O is very good oxidizer + it's a molecule that can fall apart (and turn into N2 and O2) in a very exothermic way if you look at it wrong. Oops. Back to SL-1. Nobody was killed by radiation. They were killed by things hitting them hard from the explosion. > The effort to minimize the size of the core gave an abnormally-large reactivity worth to Rod 9, the center control rod. > One of the required maintenance procedures called for Rod 9 to be manually withdrawn about four inches (10 cm) in order to attach it to the automated control mechanism from which it had been disconnected. Post-accident calculations, as well as examination of scratches on Rod 9, estimate that it had actually been withdrawn about twenty inches (51 cm), causing the reactor to go prompt critical and triggering the steam explosion. and: > At SL-1, control rods would sometimes get stuck in the control rod channel. Numerous procedures were conducted to evaluate control rods to ensure they were operating properly. There were rod drop tests and scram tests of each rod, in addition to periodic rod exercising and rod withdrawals for normal operation. From February 1959 to November 18, 1960, there were 40 cases of a stuck control rod for scram and rod drop tests and about a 2.5% failure rate. From November 18 to December 23, 1960, there was a dramatic increase in stuck rods, with 23 in that time period and a 13.0% failure rate. Besides these test failures, there were an additional 21 rod-sticking incidents from February 1959 to December 1960; four of these had occurred in the last month of operation during routine rod withdrawal. Rod 9 had the best operational performance record even though it was operated more frequently than any of the other rods. That is insane.
    - immibis 1y ago
      > Back to SL-1. Nobody was killed by radiation. They were killed by things hitting them hard from the explosion. What's the relevance of this?
Natsu 1y ago
Meltdowns aren't physically possible if we're building newer types of plants, so there can't be a new Chernobyl or even Fukushima if we're using modern types of passively cooled plants.
- Retric 1y ago
  There’s generally significant costs and asterisks around such claims. You’re much better off paying attention to site placement than trying to design something to safety handle getting covered in several meters of volcanic ash Pompeii style.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

The great thing is that coal is not the alternative in 2025. Renewables are forcing enormous amounts of coals and fossil gas off grids around the world as we speak.

tempodox 1y ago
> coal is not the alternative in 2025. Except in uncle Donald’s kingdom with “America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry” (yes, seriously): https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reinvigorating-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry-and-amending-executive-order-14241/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/rein...
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Lets come back if that leads to an increase of coal usage instead of being posturing like most else they do. Coal has been uncompetitive since the advent of the CCGT plant and was stagnating long before the fracking boom.
DennisP 1y ago
Yes, and in terms of overall deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is similar to renewables.
opo 1y ago
>The great thing is that coal is not the alternative in 2025. Unfortunately, there is a country that shut down nuclear power plants while they still have operating coal plants. Over time, coal use is declining in Germany, but that isn't the story so far in 2025: >…The share of electricity produced with fossil fuels in Germany increased by ten percent between January and the end of June 2025, compared to the same period one year before, while power production from renewables declined by almost six percent, the country’s statistical office >… Coal-fired power production increased 9.3 percent, while electricity production from fossil gas increased by 11.6 percent. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-production-germany-increased-10-first-half-2025 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-prod... Shutting nuclear power plants down when you are still burning coal is almost unbelievable... I don’t think future generations will look kindly on countries who shut down a clean form of power while they still are running the most dangerous and dirty form of power generation ever created.