3 ms·
> Even in the case of coal, which is an awful fuel for a variety of reasons, at least you're dispersing a known quantity of radioactive material and we can plan
by johncolanduoni 11y ago
> Even in the case of coal, which is an awful fuel for a variety of reasons, at least you're dispersing a known quantity of radioactive material and we can plan around that or set long term expectations.
The bigger health threat from coal is not radioactivity, but general degradation in air quality that is hazardous to human health. This is a not only high risk but guaranteed phenomenon with very high impact. Deaths due to nuclear accidents are generally estimated to be several orders of magnitude less than those due to coal in terms of deaths/KWH [1]. Even if we assume that these figures are off by 10000%, nuclear is still drastically safer than coal, even in the countries that have laws like the US's Clean Air Act which "plan around" the pollution of coal (let alone places like China with no such regulation). We have so much leeway here that we can add nuclear accidents becoming 5x more common per plant to the 10000% error and still be competitive with coal.
[1]: 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...
- Symmetry 11y agoAnd I keep posting this but even Fukushima, which actually exploded, didn't kill any more people per kwh over it's lifetime than a typical coal plant. http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-vs-coal.html http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-vs...
- Spooky23 11y agoDeaths per KW or cancers per KW is not really very relevant, because the risks associated with our current nuclear regime will persist for centuries. 100 years from now, when the Indian Point reactor will have long stopped producing electricity, there is a reasonable probability that dangerous waste materials will still be sitting in a questionable state of security just off a riverbank 40 miles north of NYC. As a society, we're not really equipped to work with that kind of risk horizon.
- johncolanduoni 11y agoHow about the climate effects of the CO2 produced by coal? How are we any better equipped to deal with that risk horizon? At least in the case of nuclear waste, there is a chance of containing the pollution. For fossil fuels, all currently feasible methods of containing CO2 are woefully inadequate. And even if we develop good CO2 containment methods, the comparably experimental technologies being investigated for Generation IV [1] nuclear reactors promise similar benefits without losing the other advantages of nuclear (relative abundance of fuel, etc.). For example, closed fuel cycles currently in development produce only non-radioactive waste. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor