4 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoThe 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 agoImho, "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 agoHave 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.