3 ms·
Chernobyl may have done a lot to inflame cultural imagination of what could happen in the worst cases, but the US still had its own high profile disasters like
by WorldMaker 8mo ago
Chernobyl may have done a lot to inflame cultural imagination of what could happen in the worst cases, but the US still had its own high profile disasters like Three Mile Island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
- patmorgan23 8mo agoI would hesitate to call Three Mile Island a disaster, it was certainly a nuclear accident. A reactor was damaged, but no one was injured and an absolutely miniscule amount of radiation was released. The other units at the plant continued to operate until quite recently (and might actually be starting up again).
- LorenPechtel 8mo agoA "disaster" that killed nobody. Likewise, an even bigger "disaster" at Fukushima--that killed nobody. (The deaths from the evacuation are not deaths from the incident--they wouldn't have died if they had stayed put.)
- wolvoleo 8mo agoHuman deaths aren't the only measure of a disaster. The pollution was huge and even detected on the other side of the Pacific.
- anonymars 8mo agoNow let's do coal and oil/gas
- wolvoleo 8mo agoNo let's do renewables. Nobody's arguing for more fossil. But nuclear isn't an option either.
- anonymars 8mo agoAre they so different? There may be good reasons not to pursue nuclear (high complexity and upfront cost), but by the overall numbers I don't think pollution or death rate make that case
- danaris 8mo agoI guarantee you that "let's do" was "let's look at the pollution, including radioactive pollution, from". Because coal mining releases more radiation into the world than nuclear power. ...But yes; with the efficiency and price of solar, wind, and batteries now, nuclear makes much less sense.
- LorenPechtel 8mo agoDidn't realize coal also did it in mining. It's evil stuff! But the price of batteries is far, far too high for renewables to make sense.
- danaris 8mo agoIt was, several years ago. That's so much not the case now that renewables + batteries were by far the largest source of new generation in the US (yes, the US, with Trump actively trying to destroy them) last year. Look up some of the new information coming out about them recently. Here, I'll give you a relevant video I watched recently to start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM (channel is Technology Connections)
- LorenPechtel 8mo agoYes, they are. They just don't know it. Reality: arguing for renewables over nuclear actually ends up making more fossil fuel use as the renewables are not viable.
- LorenPechtel 8mo agoThe pollution from Fukushima was very minor, blown all out of proportion by the reporting. It could be detected on the other side of the Pacific because the background levels are so low. But we can detect it far, far below the point of meaningful risk. I don't know the numbers for Fukushima, but let's consider Three Mile Island. Same basic problem--some radioactive noble gas needed to be released to avoid trouble (and they actually released it rather than panic.) You are standing at the fence line, what do you do? Let's say you evacuate....hey, there's a street here. Cross it? Nope--it was more dangerous to walk across one ordinary street than to stay put.
- anonymars 8mo agoIndeed. Banqiao Dam would like a word And yet we still build hydroelectric dams