5 ms·

> Lead to basically zero direct deaths Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done

> Lead to basically zero direct deaths Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done by a power generation mechanism. > Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan Yeah, crazy stuff happens and radioactive spills have longterm effects on the environment that are hard to address. > ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake That's a non-sequitur. > Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good use of money Japan has spent the equivalent of $180B cleaning up the mess Fukoshima left behind. [1] Decomissioning the old reactors and replacing them with the safer to avoid unexpected disasters which cost hundreds of billions does seem like a good use of money. Far better than just hoping something unexpected doesn't happen. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248

StreamBright 6mo ago
> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death This is not true at all. Direct Occupational Deaths (Mining & Accidents) Even in a highly regulated environment like the United States, coal mining is not a zero-fatality industry. United States: According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), there were 8 coal mining deaths in 2025 and 10 in 2024. This is a massive improvement from 1907 (the deadliest year), which saw 3,242 deaths. In countries with less stringent safety oversight, the numbers are much higher. For example, China's coal industry—though improving—has historically recorded hundreds to thousands of deaths annually. In 2022 alone, hundreds of people died in global coal mine accidents. Chronic Disease: "Black Lung" (pneumoconiosis) is still a leading cause of death for miners. In the U.S. alone, thousands of former miners die every decade from lung diseases directly caused by inhaling coal dust.
leonidasrup 6mo ago
It's always hard count indirect deaths. We could for example argue that Japan, by stopping it's nuclear power plants for long time and replacing it's cheap nuclear electricity with expensive imported gas electricity caused more deaths than by direct radiological impact of Fukoshima accident. "Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident" https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf "In an effort to meet the energy demands, nuclear power was replaced by imported fossil fuels, which led to increases in electricity prices. The price increases led to a reduction in electricity consumption but only during the coldest times of the year. Given its protective effects from extreme weather, the reduced electricity consumption led to an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increased mortality resulting from the higher energy prices outnumbered the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting that applying the precautionary principle caused more harm than good." In term of money, you have look at the sums that Japan has been pouring into importing gas, which was needed to replace the missing nuclear power generation. "With the Japanese government’s blessing, these companies are encouraging other countries to use more gas and LNG by investing US$93 billion from March 2013 to March 2024 in midstream and downstream oil and gas infrastructure globally." https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima-transformed https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima...
- cogman10 6mo ago
  I pretty much fully agree. I'm not actually arguing that Gen II plants need to be decommissioned immediately. I'm arguing that they need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible. The process that takes can look like running the Gen II reactor while a replacement Gen IV reactor is being built and then decommissioning after the IV reactor is up and running. I'm not against using nuclear, far from it. But I do think we need to actually have a plan about how we evolve the current nuclear fleet.
  - thrownthatway 6mo ago
    > Gen II … need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible. Why? The overwhelming majority of Gen II reactors aren’t on the east coast of Japan. And the lessons learned from Fukushima Daiitchi can be applied elsewhere to mitigate similar risks. My opinion is it’s more prudent to run the existing fleet for its economically useful life, remembering that reliable base load can have more value than intermittent wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries. You also don’t get process heat not district heating from wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries.
    - cogman10 6mo ago
      Gen II reactors everywhere are subject to war and sabotage. Places that are currently safe aren't always safe. Fukushima was a demonstration that these reactors can still melt down. It doesn't take exactly fukushima to cause a meltdown. The reason to prioritize decommissioning is because the new generations of reactors are completely safe. There can be no meltdown, even if they are explicitly sabotaged. Then the bigger risk becomes not the reactor but the management of waste. What Gen II reactors are is effectively a landmine in a box. The proposed solution to avoid detonating the landmine is adding more pillows, buffers, and padding, but still keeping the landmine because it'd be expensive to replace. I think that's just a bad idea. Unexpected things happen. They don't have to (and probably won't) look exactly like a Tsunami hitting the facility. So why not replace the box with a landmine with one that doesn't have the landmine. Yes it cost money to do, but it's simply safer and completely eliminates a whole class of risks.
philipallstar 6mo ago
> > ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake > That's a non-sequitur. I think this is to establish that the large number of deaths from the disaster weren't due to the nuclear plant, which people seem to assume.
- cogman10 6mo ago
  People assume it, I did not. Nor did I claim it. It is a non-sequitur because we aren't talking about deaths from natural disasters.
  - thrownthatway 6mo ago
    We actually are. There are plenty of smaller nuclear power reactor issues listen on Wikipedia, but the three big ones are Chernobyl, but that was an RMBK, which no one built except those crazy Russians, TMI which didn’t kill or injury anyone, and Fukushima Daiitchi which resulted in one death. So we’re not really talking about deaths from nuclear power reactors, because there aren’t any, discounting Chernobyl because that won’t ever happen again. So we must be talking about the deaths from that one natural disaster associated with the Fukushima Daiitchi meltdowns. Otherwise, I dint know what deaths you’re talking about. More people injur themselves falling off ladders while trying to clean their solar panels than nuclear power ever will.
    - cogman10 6mo ago
      You are, I'm not. Good luck.
      - thrownthatway 6mo ago
        Ok, which deaths from nuclear power. State your case, enumerate them. The idea that nuclear isn’t safe, and can’t be competitive in thr market is just nonsense. Seventeen AP1000s are currently in operation or under construction. Four are in operation at two sites in China, two at Sanmen Nuclear Power Station and two at Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant. As of 2019, all four Chinese reactors were completed and connected to the grid, and as of 2026, eleven more are under construction. It goes on… Two are in operation at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Augusta, Georgia, in the United States, with Vogtle 3 having come online in July 2023, and Vogtle 4 in April 2024. Construction at Vogtle suffered numerous delays and cost overruns. Construction of two additional reactors at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station near Columbia, South Carolina, led to Westinghouse's bankruptcy in 2017 and the cancellation of construction at that site. It was reported in January 2025 by The Wall Street Journal and The State that Santee Cooper, the sole owner of the stored parts and unfinished construction, is exploring construction and financing partners to finish construction these two reactors. The need for large amounts of electricity for data centers is said to be the driving factor for their renewed interest. Twenty-four more AP1000s are currently being planned, with six in India, nine in Ukraine, three in Poland, two in Bulgaria, and four in the United States. China is currently developing more advanced versions and owns their patent rights. The first AP1000 began operations in China at Sanmen, where Unit 1 became the first AP1000 to achieve criticality in June 2018, and was connected to the grid the next month. Further builds in China will be based on the modified CAP1000 and CAP1400 designs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 The fact is, nuclear power is a 21st century success story.
thrownthatway 6mo ago
> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, There have been plenty of direct deaths caused by coal power. Coal dust can be quite explosive and has caused a lot of deaths over the years. And plenty of coal fired boilers, both stationary and mobile (locomotives) and failed causing plenty of deaths.
- peterfirefly 6mo ago
  It's instructive (and scary) to google pictures of exploded boilers!
pqtyw 6mo ago
> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done By that definition housefires also lead to very few direct deaths if most people die due to smoke inhalation instead of burning alive. Unlike with nuclear that, even if we entirely ignore CO2 emissions and climate change the remaining "indirect" damage due to pollution and long-term effects on the environment are largely know and quantifiable and are astronomically higher per MHw produced compared to nuclear power.
tshaddox 6mo ago
> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. Huh? Are you not counting coal mining, which historically caused thousands of deaths per year and presumably still causes at least hundreds per year (not sure what info we have on that from China).

StreamBright 6mo ago

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death This is not true at all. Direct Occupational Deaths (Mining & Accidents) Even in a highly regulated environment like the United States, coal mining is not a zero-fatality industry. United States: According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), there were 8 coal mining deaths in 2025 and 10 in 2024. This is a massive improvement from 1907 (the deadliest year), which saw 3,242 deaths. In countries with less stringent safety oversight, the numbers are much higher. For example, China's coal industry—though improving—has historically recorded hundreds to thousands of deaths annually. In 2022 alone, hundreds of people died in global coal mine accidents. Chronic Disease: "Black Lung" (pneumoconiosis) is still a leading cause of death for miners. In the U.S. alone, thousands of former miners die every decade from lung diseases directly caused by inhaling coal dust.

leonidasrup 6mo ago

It's always hard count indirect deaths. We could for example argue that Japan, by stopping it's nuclear power plants for long time and replacing it's cheap nuclear electricity with expensive imported gas electricity caused more deaths than by direct radiological impact of Fukoshima accident. "Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident" https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf "In an effort to meet the energy demands, nuclear power was replaced by imported fossil fuels, which led to increases in electricity prices. The price increases led to a reduction in electricity consumption but only during the coldest times of the year. Given its protective effects from extreme weather, the reduced electricity consumption led to an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increased mortality resulting from the higher energy prices outnumbered the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting that applying the precautionary principle caused more harm than good." In term of money, you have look at the sums that Japan has been pouring into importing gas, which was needed to replace the missing nuclear power generation. "With the Japanese government’s blessing, these companies are encouraging other countries to use more gas and LNG by investing US$93 billion from March 2013 to March 2024 in midstream and downstream oil and gas infrastructure globally." https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima-transformed https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima...

cogman10 6mo ago
I pretty much fully agree. I'm not actually arguing that Gen II plants need to be decommissioned immediately. I'm arguing that they need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible. The process that takes can look like running the Gen II reactor while a replacement Gen IV reactor is being built and then decommissioning after the IV reactor is up and running. I'm not against using nuclear, far from it. But I do think we need to actually have a plan about how we evolve the current nuclear fleet.
- thrownthatway 6mo ago
  > Gen II … need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible. Why? The overwhelming majority of Gen II reactors aren’t on the east coast of Japan. And the lessons learned from Fukushima Daiitchi can be applied elsewhere to mitigate similar risks. My opinion is it’s more prudent to run the existing fleet for its economically useful life, remembering that reliable base load can have more value than intermittent wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries. You also don’t get process heat not district heating from wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries.
  - cogman10 6mo ago
    Gen II reactors everywhere are subject to war and sabotage. Places that are currently safe aren't always safe. Fukushima was a demonstration that these reactors can still melt down. It doesn't take exactly fukushima to cause a meltdown. The reason to prioritize decommissioning is because the new generations of reactors are completely safe. There can be no meltdown, even if they are explicitly sabotaged. Then the bigger risk becomes not the reactor but the management of waste. What Gen II reactors are is effectively a landmine in a box. The proposed solution to avoid detonating the landmine is adding more pillows, buffers, and padding, but still keeping the landmine because it'd be expensive to replace. I think that's just a bad idea. Unexpected things happen. They don't have to (and probably won't) look exactly like a Tsunami hitting the facility. So why not replace the box with a landmine with one that doesn't have the landmine. Yes it cost money to do, but it's simply safer and completely eliminates a whole class of risks.

philipallstar 6mo ago

> > ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake > That's a non-sequitur. I think this is to establish that the large number of deaths from the disaster weren't due to the nuclear plant, which people seem to assume.

cogman10 6mo ago
People assume it, I did not. Nor did I claim it. It is a non-sequitur because we aren't talking about deaths from natural disasters.
- thrownthatway 6mo ago
  We actually are. There are plenty of smaller nuclear power reactor issues listen on Wikipedia, but the three big ones are Chernobyl, but that was an RMBK, which no one built except those crazy Russians, TMI which didn’t kill or injury anyone, and Fukushima Daiitchi which resulted in one death. So we’re not really talking about deaths from nuclear power reactors, because there aren’t any, discounting Chernobyl because that won’t ever happen again. So we must be talking about the deaths from that one natural disaster associated with the Fukushima Daiitchi meltdowns. Otherwise, I dint know what deaths you’re talking about. More people injur themselves falling off ladders while trying to clean their solar panels than nuclear power ever will.
  - cogman10 6mo ago
    You are, I'm not. Good luck.
    - thrownthatway 6mo ago
      Ok, which deaths from nuclear power. State your case, enumerate them. The idea that nuclear isn’t safe, and can’t be competitive in thr market is just nonsense. Seventeen AP1000s are currently in operation or under construction. Four are in operation at two sites in China, two at Sanmen Nuclear Power Station and two at Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant. As of 2019, all four Chinese reactors were completed and connected to the grid, and as of 2026, eleven more are under construction. It goes on… Two are in operation at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Augusta, Georgia, in the United States, with Vogtle 3 having come online in July 2023, and Vogtle 4 in April 2024. Construction at Vogtle suffered numerous delays and cost overruns. Construction of two additional reactors at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station near Columbia, South Carolina, led to Westinghouse's bankruptcy in 2017 and the cancellation of construction at that site. It was reported in January 2025 by The Wall Street Journal and The State that Santee Cooper, the sole owner of the stored parts and unfinished construction, is exploring construction and financing partners to finish construction these two reactors. The need for large amounts of electricity for data centers is said to be the driving factor for their renewed interest. Twenty-four more AP1000s are currently being planned, with six in India, nine in Ukraine, three in Poland, two in Bulgaria, and four in the United States. China is currently developing more advanced versions and owns their patent rights. The first AP1000 began operations in China at Sanmen, where Unit 1 became the first AP1000 to achieve criticality in June 2018, and was connected to the grid the next month. Further builds in China will be based on the modified CAP1000 and CAP1400 designs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 The fact is, nuclear power is a 21st century success story.

thrownthatway 6mo ago

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, There have been plenty of direct deaths caused by coal power. Coal dust can be quite explosive and has caused a lot of deaths over the years. And plenty of coal fired boilers, both stationary and mobile (locomotives) and failed causing plenty of deaths.

peterfirefly 6mo ago
It's instructive (and scary) to google pictures of exploded boilers!

pqtyw 6mo ago

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done By that definition housefires also lead to very few direct deaths if most people die due to smoke inhalation instead of burning alive. Unlike with nuclear that, even if we entirely ignore CO2 emissions and climate change the remaining "indirect" damage due to pollution and long-term effects on the environment are largely know and quantifiable and are astronomically higher per MHw produced compared to nuclear power.

tshaddox 6mo ago

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. Huh? Are you not counting coal mining, which historically caused thousands of deaths per year and presumably still causes at least hundreds per year (not sure what info we have on that from China).