5 ms·

I think nuclear power is safest even in absolute terms not only relatively.

by rimantas 11y ago

dekhn 11y ago
solar would seem to be safer, presuming you can manufacture the cells without causing environmental degradation.
- gjm11 11y ago
  Nope, at least not according to the figures I've seen (e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...). I think the main reason is that installing solar panels isn't perfectly safe. Nuclear comes out a long way ahead of solar -- but both are vastly ahead of coal.
witty_username 11y ago
Why? This cursory Google search https://www.google.co.in/search?q=death+per+terawatt https://www.google.co.in/search?q=death+per+terawatt seems to say nuclear has less kills per terawatt-hour than coal, though obviously quantifying deaths from all these power sources is hard.
- kuschku 11y ago
  The issue with this is how it calculates deaths per terrawatt. Nuclear has the whole waste storage (and, in some places, drinking water contamination) issue, while coal has the whole climate change issue. Both are bad, but just saying that one of them has less short-term, but more long-term deaths isn’t a good argument.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Imho, "the whole climate change issue" is a waste storage issue as well. Except it doesn't kill people quite as quickly, so we're okay with it just being released into our atmosphere.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    Have there been any documented cases of nuclear waste storage causing mortal danger, and if so, how do they compare to coal's waste storage (or, more precisely, the lack thereof)? I don't know any details on either, but I'd suspect that the latter is a much greater threat than the former, and that the more we transition from coal to nuclear fission (and, alongside that, the more we develop ways to use nuclear waste more productively), the better.
pjc50 11y ago
The worst case is rather nasty though: the rendering of a large area uninhabitable and unusable for agriculture. There aren't a lot of sites in Europe where you can site a nuclear reactor far enough away to avoid either evacuating a major city or losing an agricultural region. There is no "away", as people like to say about rubbish.
- lmm 11y ago
  Compare that large area to that consumed by business-as-usual for the alternatives though. E.g. the area rendered uninhabitable/unusable for hydro power is larger (per kwh). (Of course many people find a reservoir more attractive than a radioactive zone, but both are equally unusable for habitation or agriculture)
  - pjc50 11y ago
    area rendered uninhabitable/unusable for hydro power is larger That can be true of reservoirs (Lake Mead is huge) but isn't necessarily. UK's largest reservoir is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielder_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielder_Water at a mere 2 miles by <6 miles, supporting a piddly 6MW (yes, megawatts not gigawatts, I had to double check that). But that's subject to planning permission in a way that radioactive exclusion zones aren't. The UK suffered from Chernobyl fallout for years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-Britain-still-feels-the-effects-of-Chernobyl.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-B... It's not that nuclear power is bad on average, it's just that the worst case scenarios affect potentially huge areas.
    - NLips 11y ago
      A clarification to the point about Kielder's power generation: Kielder reservoir is primarily for regulating the water supply, rather than power generation. There are many hydro-electric plants in the UK generating much more power.

I think nuclear power is safest even in absolute terms not only relatively.

dekhn 11y ago

solar would seem to be safer, presuming you can manufacture the cells without causing environmental degradation.

gjm11 11y ago
Nope, at least not according to the figures I've seen (e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...). I think the main reason is that installing solar panels isn't perfectly safe. Nuclear comes out a long way ahead of solar -- but both are vastly ahead of coal.

witty_username 11y ago

Why? This cursory Google search https://www.google.co.in/search?q=death+per+terawatt https://www.google.co.in/search?q=death+per+terawatt seems to say nuclear has less kills per terawatt-hour than coal, though obviously quantifying deaths from all these power sources is hard.

kuschku 11y ago
The issue with this is how it calculates deaths per terrawatt. Nuclear has the whole waste storage (and, in some places, drinking water contamination) issue, while coal has the whole climate change issue. Both are bad, but just saying that one of them has less short-term, but more long-term deaths isn’t a good argument.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Imho, "the whole climate change issue" is a waste storage issue as well. Except it doesn't kill people quite as quickly, so we're okay with it just being released into our atmosphere.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  Have there been any documented cases of nuclear waste storage causing mortal danger, and if so, how do they compare to coal's waste storage (or, more precisely, the lack thereof)? I don't know any details on either, but I'd suspect that the latter is a much greater threat than the former, and that the more we transition from coal to nuclear fission (and, alongside that, the more we develop ways to use nuclear waste more productively), the better.

pjc50 11y ago

The worst case is rather nasty though: the rendering of a large area uninhabitable and unusable for agriculture. There aren't a lot of sites in Europe where you can site a nuclear reactor far enough away to avoid either evacuating a major city or losing an agricultural region. There is no "away", as people like to say about rubbish.

lmm 11y ago
Compare that large area to that consumed by business-as-usual for the alternatives though. E.g. the area rendered uninhabitable/unusable for hydro power is larger (per kwh). (Of course many people find a reservoir more attractive than a radioactive zone, but both are equally unusable for habitation or agriculture)
- pjc50 11y ago
  area rendered uninhabitable/unusable for hydro power is larger That can be true of reservoirs (Lake Mead is huge) but isn't necessarily. UK's largest reservoir is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielder_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielder_Water at a mere 2 miles by <6 miles, supporting a piddly 6MW (yes, megawatts not gigawatts, I had to double check that). But that's subject to planning permission in a way that radioactive exclusion zones aren't. The UK suffered from Chernobyl fallout for years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-Britain-still-feels-the-effects-of-Chernobyl.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-B... It's not that nuclear power is bad on average, it's just that the worst case scenarios affect potentially huge areas.
  - NLips 11y ago
    A clarification to the point about Kielder's power generation: Kielder reservoir is primarily for regulating the water supply, rather than power generation. There are many hydro-electric plants in the UK generating much more power.