3 ms·

What people don't think about, because it's not an acute disaster like a nuclear accident, is that coal power plants kill a /lot/ of people. According to this

by jlebar 12y ago

What people don't think about, because it's not an acute disaster like a nuclear accident, is that coal power plants kill a /lot/ of people. According to this article, coal power in China killed 300,000 people last year, which itself is way more than were displaced (not killed) by Fukushima. Even US coal power, which is much safer than Chinese coal power, is 160x more deadly per joule than nuclear, and it appears that's not counting climate change effects. I don't mean to suggest that nuclear power is without risk -- of course it's risky business. But we need to compare the risk to the alternatives. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...

nwh 12y ago
Somewhat vitally, there's a certain amount of unease for a danger we can't sense and can't see. Nuclear power is scary for that reason, it doesn't matter if it's irrational or unfounded, the thought of being killed by an invisible foe is pretty universally terrifying. I'd much rather see wind, tidal or geothermal anyway. In the scheme of things they have lower regulatory hurdles and can even be tinkered with in your back yard for the former. One of the houses I walk past on my way home has a wind turbine made out of a washing machine motor and PVC pipe, it's extremely cool to watch.
- afafsd 12y ago
  That's fine, but the amount of reasonably accessible wind, tidal and geothermal power is far below global requirements.
  - power_rated 12y ago
    No it is not. Reasonable accessible wind, solar, tidal an geothermal power is many times the global requirements.
Lazare 12y ago
Germany responded to Fukushima by shutting down their nuclear power plants, and using more coal. In fact, they've embarked on a program of building new coal plants across Germany, which is madness by basically any metric you care to use. Which has an interesting outcome: The irrational response to Fukushima (in particular, the shift from nuclear to coal generation) will undoubtedly kill several orders of magnitude more people than the actual Fukushima disaster did. Sometimes it's hard not to get cynical and bitter.
- lispm 12y ago
  Practically every sentence is wrong. > Germany responded to Fukushima by shutting down their nuclear power plants Germany did not do that. Some of the oldest were shutdown. Basically Germany went back to the original plan from 2000, which was made together with the industry. The last nuclear reactor will be shut down around 2022. > In fact, they've embarked on a program of building new coal plants across Germany, which is madness by basically any metric you care to use. Germany did not do that. Various coal power plants were planned long ago. Also many old were and are taken offline. That Germany is using coal is not actually madness. Germany has basically only one fossil fuel in larger quantities in the country: coal. > Which has an interesting outcome: The irrational response to Fukushima (in particular, the shift from nuclear to coal generation) will undoubtedly kill several orders of magnitude more people than the actual Fukushima disaster did. Germany is on a long missions towards renewable energy. Nuclear energy is not a part of the plan. Nuclear will be replaced early, since it is a very costly energy which needs decades to be replaced. So Germany wanted to stop investing into it very early. There is no shift to coal. This year for example coal use is going down. What you think is a shift to coal, is just a temporary effect in a long-term plan. > Sometimes it's hard not to get cynical and bitter. If you would be better informed about German plans, you would not need to be cynical and bitter.
  - Lazare 12y ago
    Item 1: Germany shut down 41% of it's nuclear plants following Fukushima, and greatly accelerated plans to close the remaining ones. Item 2: Germany is building a raft of new coal plants; something like 30 are in various stages of planning and building. According to Die Welt, power generation from brown coal (the dirtiest form) is climbing, at the highest level since 1990, and projected to increase further. Overall fossil fuel use for power generation is staying constant. If it wasn't for the decline of nuclear power in Germany, fossil fuel use could have declined. And according to Germany's energy regulator, coal fired plants will be essential to replace the closing nuclear plants. > There is no shift to coal. Yes, there is. As you go on to admit, even if you label it a "temporary effect in a long-term plan". (But given that the coal plants now being built are projected to be operating for 40 years, it's not what I'd call temporary.) And that shift will result in a net increase in deaths. You seem very defensive, but you haven't actually disputed any of the underlying facts.
shangxiao 12y ago
They kill a lot of people when not built and operated correctly, which is what the article points out, right? What would happen if the Chinese took the same attitude with nuclear power?
- jlebar 12y ago
  > What would happen if the Chinese took the same attitude with nuclear power? I'd bet it would be pretty calamitous, as you imply. I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea. However, would it kill 300,000 people every year? I'm not so sure.
  - shangxiao 12y ago
    I don't honestly know where 300,000 came from wrt that Forbes article. I have different number: 1,049 from [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Accidents_and_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Accidents_and_de...

by jlebar 12y ago

nwh 12y ago

Somewhat vitally, there's a certain amount of unease for a danger we can't sense and can't see. Nuclear power is scary for that reason, it doesn't matter if it's irrational or unfounded, the thought of being killed by an invisible foe is pretty universally terrifying. I'd much rather see wind, tidal or geothermal anyway. In the scheme of things they have lower regulatory hurdles and can even be tinkered with in your back yard for the former. One of the houses I walk past on my way home has a wind turbine made out of a washing machine motor and PVC pipe, it's extremely cool to watch.

afafsd 12y ago
That's fine, but the amount of reasonably accessible wind, tidal and geothermal power is far below global requirements.
- power_rated 12y ago
  No it is not. Reasonable accessible wind, solar, tidal an geothermal power is many times the global requirements.

Lazare 12y ago

Germany responded to Fukushima by shutting down their nuclear power plants, and using more coal. In fact, they've embarked on a program of building new coal plants across Germany, which is madness by basically any metric you care to use. Which has an interesting outcome: The irrational response to Fukushima (in particular, the shift from nuclear to coal generation) will undoubtedly kill several orders of magnitude more people than the actual Fukushima disaster did. Sometimes it's hard not to get cynical and bitter.

lispm 12y ago
Practically every sentence is wrong. > Germany responded to Fukushima by shutting down their nuclear power plants Germany did not do that. Some of the oldest were shutdown. Basically Germany went back to the original plan from 2000, which was made together with the industry. The last nuclear reactor will be shut down around 2022. > In fact, they've embarked on a program of building new coal plants across Germany, which is madness by basically any metric you care to use. Germany did not do that. Various coal power plants were planned long ago. Also many old were and are taken offline. That Germany is using coal is not actually madness. Germany has basically only one fossil fuel in larger quantities in the country: coal. > Which has an interesting outcome: The irrational response to Fukushima (in particular, the shift from nuclear to coal generation) will undoubtedly kill several orders of magnitude more people than the actual Fukushima disaster did. Germany is on a long missions towards renewable energy. Nuclear energy is not a part of the plan. Nuclear will be replaced early, since it is a very costly energy which needs decades to be replaced. So Germany wanted to stop investing into it very early. There is no shift to coal. This year for example coal use is going down. What you think is a shift to coal, is just a temporary effect in a long-term plan. > Sometimes it's hard not to get cynical and bitter. If you would be better informed about German plans, you would not need to be cynical and bitter.
- Lazare 12y ago
  Item 1: Germany shut down 41% of it's nuclear plants following Fukushima, and greatly accelerated plans to close the remaining ones. Item 2: Germany is building a raft of new coal plants; something like 30 are in various stages of planning and building. According to Die Welt, power generation from brown coal (the dirtiest form) is climbing, at the highest level since 1990, and projected to increase further. Overall fossil fuel use for power generation is staying constant. If it wasn't for the decline of nuclear power in Germany, fossil fuel use could have declined. And according to Germany's energy regulator, coal fired plants will be essential to replace the closing nuclear plants. > There is no shift to coal. Yes, there is. As you go on to admit, even if you label it a "temporary effect in a long-term plan". (But given that the coal plants now being built are projected to be operating for 40 years, it's not what I'd call temporary.) And that shift will result in a net increase in deaths. You seem very defensive, but you haven't actually disputed any of the underlying facts.

shangxiao 12y ago

They kill a lot of people when not built and operated correctly, which is what the article points out, right? What would happen if the Chinese took the same attitude with nuclear power?

jlebar 12y ago
> What would happen if the Chinese took the same attitude with nuclear power? I'd bet it would be pretty calamitous, as you imply. I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea. However, would it kill 300,000 people every year? I'm not so sure.
- shangxiao 12y ago
  I don't honestly know where 300,000 came from wrt that Forbes article. I have different number: 1,049 from [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Accidents_and_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Accidents_and_de...