Death rates from energy production per TWh(ourworldindata.org)
ourworldindata.org
Death rates from energy production per TWh
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
168 comments
It blew the fallout northwest. An aproximate 50x20 km eliptic strip was contaminated. Tokyo is too far away. Uninhabited by people, yes, mainly due to fear if radiation. For other animals and plants that aren't aware of radiation, not really.
The problem with radiation for humans is, that humans live far longer than most species - at least common to the two regions with a reactor blowup. An e.g. 10 year loss of projected lifespan would be considered unacceptable for a human population, but most animals don't live long enough to get significantly impacted.
Ever heard the word samosely? That the name given to the people that live in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Cherno...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Cherno...
What about them? By the way the article is about people living outside the exclusion zone, though at its borders. Only about 150 humans are currently living illegally inside the zone, according to the article. And of course, they are not dying immediately, but certainly have a larger risk for cancers. Though, if they don't smoke and as they are not exposed to many other contaminants, it might not be too bad.
Where would solar and wind be in this chart? It's definitely not zero (falls from height, etc).
Hydro is missing too.
Hydro has a pretty terrible track record with regard to safety, most of it because of a single accident: the Banqiao Reservoir Dam failure, which caused 230000 deaths. And even if much less dramatic, dam failure still happen regularly, costing deaths, property and environmental damage.
And while I tend to think of hydro as the ideal energy source (renewable, on demand, with built-in storage), safety is not one of its strong points. Or at least, not with the way it is managed now.
Hydro has a pretty terrible track record with regard to safety, most of it because of a single accident: the Banqiao Reservoir Dam failure, which caused 230000 deaths. And even if much less dramatic, dam failure still happen regularly, costing deaths, property and environmental damage.
And while I tend to think of hydro as the ideal energy source (renewable, on demand, with built-in storage), safety is not one of its strong points. Or at least, not with the way it is managed now.
It is pretty good. It has a few other problems:
* Can't be built in lots of areas due to geography
* Struggles seriously in droughts
* Large reservoirs emits significant biogenic methane (especially in warm areas) [1], which is a powerful greenhouse gas
* Messes with fish
* Gets scary in major rainfalls
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023102/
* Can't be built in lots of areas due to geography
* Struggles seriously in droughts
* Large reservoirs emits significant biogenic methane (especially in warm areas) [1], which is a powerful greenhouse gas
* Messes with fish
* Gets scary in major rainfalls
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023102/
[deleted]
My guess it would be related to gas. It's my understanding that new utility-grade wind and solar installs have to have generating capacity equal to or greater than the nominal generation capacity of wind/solar to maintain a stable base load when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining and that natural gas powered two-stage plants tend to be the "insurance" layer (they are relatively clean, start fast, can throttle up/down far more flexibly than other modes of generation...)
> Note: Figures include deaths resulting from accidents in energy production and deaths related to air pollution impacts. Deaths related to air pollution are dominant, typically accounting for greater than 99% of the total.
Based on that note it sounds like it might be pretty close to 0.
Based on that note it sounds like it might be pretty close to 0.
This older article has estimates for more production types including those:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
Exactly what I was thinking.
I'd expect it to be quite high (deaths per TWh) while the technology is new or advancing fast, both because the energy production will be low, and because there must be more risk in newer industrial-scale technologies.
Deaths per TWh in Offshore wind vs Onshore wind production would be interesting to see too.
I'd expect it to be quite high (deaths per TWh) while the technology is new or advancing fast, both because the energy production will be low, and because there must be more risk in newer industrial-scale technologies.
Deaths per TWh in Offshore wind vs Onshore wind production would be interesting to see too.
Ya I wanted to see solar in the chart because I always wonder what the lifecycle costs are for solar. It seems like recycling a solar panel would be as labor intensive and toxic as most other electronics.
Also missing: water power.
There were lots of deaths from hydro power dam failures.
(Update: fixed typo, thanks :D)
There were lots of deaths from hydro power dam failures.
(Update: fixed typo, thanks :D)
[deleted]
Rooftop Solar is 0.44 deaths/TWh, wind is 0.15 deaths/TWh, Hydro is 1.4 or 0.1, depending on if you count the biggest accident or not.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
I don't think that would count natural gas emissions for backing renewables.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
I don't think that would count natural gas emissions for backing renewables.
The referenced hydro accident is the Banqiao Dam failure, which Wikipedia says resulted in between 171,000 and 230,000 deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
I'd expect deaths from big solar farms to be quite a bit lower than that, possibly lower than nuclear even.
I know it's not completely related since it's not about human deaths, but wind is quite disruptive for the local fauna actually.
My country invested a lot in wind generated energy in the past decade (and that's a good thing), but the bird populations in those areas clearly suffered for it.
My country invested a lot in wind generated energy in the past decade (and that's a good thing), but the bird populations in those areas clearly suffered for it.
One of the first hits on google. Deaths are per 1000 TwH, and numbers are somewhat different, probably illustrating how hard it is to estimate casualties from pollution. Nuclear is still safest, followed by solar and wind.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy...
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy...
I'd guess that hydro is worse than solar/wind by this metric. While rare there have been some pretty bad dam breaks, the Banqiao Dam failure alone killed ~200,000 people.
Deaths from solar and wind are almost entirely due to falls during installation and service. I looked into this a few years ago while writing my thesis and death rate per TWhr for different energy sources was: coal (29), oil (18), natural gas (2.8), biofuel/biomass (4.6), hydro (1.4), solar (0.11), wind (0.06), and nuclear (0.052).
Perhaps because installers are knowingly and willingly choosing to take the risk of falling off a roof, and are getting paid to accept that risk. It doesn't seem right to compare that type of death with people dying from lung cancer caused by air pollution that they have no direct control over.
Apparently the deaths are justified because energy.
Are the subsidies and taxes (incentives and penalties) rational in light of the relative harms of each form of energy?
"Study: U.S. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Exceed Pentagon Spending" https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-f...
> The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion.
> The study defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economists do. It accounts for the “differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs” and other damage, including premature deaths from air pollution.
IDK whether they've included the costs of responding to requests for help with natural disasters that are more probable due to climate change caused by these "externalties" / "external costs" of fossil fuels.
Are the subsidies and taxes (incentives and penalties) rational in light of the relative harms of each form of energy?
"Study: U.S. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Exceed Pentagon Spending" https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-f...
> The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion.
> The study defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economists do. It accounts for the “differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs” and other damage, including premature deaths from air pollution.
IDK whether they've included the costs of responding to requests for help with natural disasters that are more probable due to climate change caused by these "externalties" / "external costs" of fossil fuels.
Energy saves lives so some risk probably is justified.
Why isn't the market choosing the least harmful, least lethal energy sources? Energy is for the most part entirely substitutable: switching costs for consumers like hospitals are basically zero.
(Everyone is free to invest in clean energy at any time)
(Everyone is free to invest in clean energy at any time)
Switching costs for the entire society are far from zero.
100% Renewable Energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
> The main barriers to the widespread implementation of large-scale renewable energy and low-carbon energy strategies are political rather than technological. According to the 2013 Post Carbon Pathways report, which reviewed many international studies, the key roadblocks are: climate change denial, the fossil fuels lobby, political inaction, unsustainable energy consumption, outdated energy infrastructure, and financial constraints.
We need to make the external costs of energy production internal in order to create incentives to prevent these fossil fuel deaths and other costs.
> The main barriers to the widespread implementation of large-scale renewable energy and low-carbon energy strategies are political rather than technological. According to the 2013 Post Carbon Pathways report, which reviewed many international studies, the key roadblocks are: climate change denial, the fossil fuels lobby, political inaction, unsustainable energy consumption, outdated energy infrastructure, and financial constraints.
We need to make the external costs of energy production internal in order to create incentives to prevent these fossil fuel deaths and other costs.
So, it's fairly obvious this was written with a pro-Nucelar bent, which is disappointing for something branded with YC. Even if we ignore that when nuclear power plants DO fail, they're cataclysmic in consequences. Simply put, there are only so many 500-year-no-go-zones we can create in our environment before the problems presented by them start to scale upwards into places we don't understand.
What I think is most interesting is that very few entrepreneurs are talking about the exciting world of a more distributed grid. Distributed Grids running on renewables with backup from a larger centralized grid is a really interesting idea, and it's one where long term servicing costs will be pretty big.
It'd be a good time for folks in SV to think about swinging at the big formerly-state-subsidized behemoth power company. Because the alternative is that they make their case that they need state subsidization while still maintaining autonomy.
I don't really understand why so many folks like to think it's a clever take to say, "Actually Nuclear is quite safe." Even if that's the case, it is dependent on having a centralized power grid (which is very hard to maintain and occasionally causes wildfires), it depends on fuel mining and manufacture (also not a very safe proposition for those involved, uranium mining has similar risks to coal mining), and the proliferation of these fuels also proliferates an important component of the means by which weapons that turn a city to ash in mere moments are manufactured.
Compare this to the plunging cost of solar and wind. It just... doesn't seem very smart except for the most densely stacked industrial regions.
What I think is most interesting is that very few entrepreneurs are talking about the exciting world of a more distributed grid. Distributed Grids running on renewables with backup from a larger centralized grid is a really interesting idea, and it's one where long term servicing costs will be pretty big.
It'd be a good time for folks in SV to think about swinging at the big formerly-state-subsidized behemoth power company. Because the alternative is that they make their case that they need state subsidization while still maintaining autonomy.
I don't really understand why so many folks like to think it's a clever take to say, "Actually Nuclear is quite safe." Even if that's the case, it is dependent on having a centralized power grid (which is very hard to maintain and occasionally causes wildfires), it depends on fuel mining and manufacture (also not a very safe proposition for those involved, uranium mining has similar risks to coal mining), and the proliferation of these fuels also proliferates an important component of the means by which weapons that turn a city to ash in mere moments are manufactured.
Compare this to the plunging cost of solar and wind. It just... doesn't seem very smart except for the most densely stacked industrial regions.
It isn’t written from a pro-nuclear perspective: it’s just data, with attributed sources. And the majority of those nuclear deaths are from uranium mining.
Simply presenting data can still be biased. For example you can choose what metrics to show or you can choose to omit data (deaths for solar and wind) in order to make your preferred choice more palatable.
I'm not accusing the authors of doing this because I don't know much about this field, but it's worth being aware that even raw data can be biased.
I'm not accusing the authors of doing this because I don't know much about this field, but it's worth being aware that even raw data can be biased.
> (deaths for solar and wind)
Good point. And those were interesting omissions, I agree.
Good point. And those were interesting omissions, I agree.
There is an associated article with an obvious bias.
It's pretty clear you're starting with an anti-nuclear bias. Are you sure you're not just seeing a neutral article through the lens of your own bias?
Can you clarify which of the following you mean: "It is biased to point out bias in the writing accompanying this chart?" Or "It is biased to point out the facts regarding the realities of nuclear cleanup" or "It is biased to point out that other rather significant forms of energy generation were left out of this comparison without any justification?"
For the record, I am biased against centralized power grids. I'd rather see decentralized power grids and as a strategy for those I think RTG piles are a safe and well-understood technology for backstopping other forms of small scale renewable power.
Fission is just... it's too expensive for what it is. It centralized too much power with states. It's very dangerous when its safety is inevitably bypassed by industry that could never be held accountable for the tens of thousands of years of human no-go zones that it can produce.
For the record, I am biased against centralized power grids. I'd rather see decentralized power grids and as a strategy for those I think RTG piles are a safe and well-understood technology for backstopping other forms of small scale renewable power.
Fission is just... it's too expensive for what it is. It centralized too much power with states. It's very dangerous when its safety is inevitably bypassed by industry that could never be held accountable for the tens of thousands of years of human no-go zones that it can produce.
So your decentralized grid involves large-scale deployment of RTGs? Have you thought about the security implications of that? It makes it massively easier for bad actors to obtain fissile materials.
At least it's feasible to provide high security for centralized nuclear facilities. (In the UK there's even a special police force for this.)
At least it's feasible to provide high security for centralized nuclear facilities. (In the UK there's even a special police force for this.)
Not seeing that, perhaps because I am on mobile. I have a tab with a chart, a tab with a csv, and a tab with the sources.
Edit: or on desktop. Can you post the link to the article you're seeing please?
Edit: or on desktop. Can you post the link to the article you're seeing please?
I’m not especially in favor of commissioning nuclear plants to be built by the existing nuclear industry, because they’re expensive to start with and nuclear industry cost claims have routinely been wildly optimistic.
But this idea that nuclear power plant disasters cause measurable harm anywhere but Chernobyl is just ignoring every bit of epidemiology I’ve ever seen.
And, even at worst-case-Chernobyl, where they took a terrible design and turned off all the safety features, the idea that negative effects last more than decades is ludicrous. The atoms with short half lives are the dangerous-to-human-health atoms; after decades they’re gone.
I’m with you on centralizing power production having socio-political ramifications, but... we’re going to have a grid any which way. Unless we get Shipstone-level inexpensive batteries, we’re still going to have to maintain an electrical grid.
My anti-nuclear friends hate me for it, but I tend to think if we have any hope of limiting carbon forcing in mid-century, we’re going to need nuclear.
But this idea that nuclear power plant disasters cause measurable harm anywhere but Chernobyl is just ignoring every bit of epidemiology I’ve ever seen.
And, even at worst-case-Chernobyl, where they took a terrible design and turned off all the safety features, the idea that negative effects last more than decades is ludicrous. The atoms with short half lives are the dangerous-to-human-health atoms; after decades they’re gone.
I’m with you on centralizing power production having socio-political ramifications, but... we’re going to have a grid any which way. Unless we get Shipstone-level inexpensive batteries, we’re still going to have to maintain an electrical grid.
My anti-nuclear friends hate me for it, but I tend to think if we have any hope of limiting carbon forcing in mid-century, we’re going to need nuclear.
I think an awful lot of Japanese people have something to say about your definition of harm.
Reports are saying that Chernobyl is something of a nature preserve now.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
A nature preserve where if most mammals go they die in agony and only a most mammals species that can survive do so with reduced lifespans.
Good point. Thanks.
Good point. Thanks.
"In other words, within 10 years of the disaster, the small mammal populations were apparently showing no ill effects from the radiation."
"There have been a lot of radiobiological studies over the decades to find out what it takes to really damage animal populations, to do some serious reproductive damage. And across most of the exclusion zone, the doses aren't really high enough to have that effect."
"There have been a lot of radiobiological studies over the decades to find out what it takes to really damage animal populations, to do some serious reproductive damage. And across most of the exclusion zone, the doses aren't really high enough to have that effect."
I can quote writers talking about scientists too:
> ... research with [Anders Pape Møller & Timothy Mousseau] has shown that voles have higher rates of cataracts, useful populations of bacteria on the wings of birds in the zone are lower, partial albinism among barn swallows, and that cuckoos have become less common, among other findings. Serious mutations, though, happened only right after the accident.
The idea that a 10x spike in population is at all surprising in the wake of removal of humans from the region is silly. Of course short lived animals with large litters would have population spike. Futher, as the Exclusion zone is a 30km diameter circle around the blast. A very large amount of it only sees low sums of radiation, and with the removal of human influence many species will skyrocket.
All this is moot though. You wouldn't go and live there, because you as a human would die within a few years unless you stayed on the very edges and outlying areas of the blast zone. This attempt to minimize the impact of Chernobyl by suggesting that some species managed to find a way to live in the environment is bizarre. You're not defending that generation of reactor design. It's not even clear to me why you want fission when RTG piles are much more practical for anything but the most heavy of industrial use.
> ... research with [Anders Pape Møller & Timothy Mousseau] has shown that voles have higher rates of cataracts, useful populations of bacteria on the wings of birds in the zone are lower, partial albinism among barn swallows, and that cuckoos have become less common, among other findings. Serious mutations, though, happened only right after the accident.
The idea that a 10x spike in population is at all surprising in the wake of removal of humans from the region is silly. Of course short lived animals with large litters would have population spike. Futher, as the Exclusion zone is a 30km diameter circle around the blast. A very large amount of it only sees low sums of radiation, and with the removal of human influence many species will skyrocket.
All this is moot though. You wouldn't go and live there, because you as a human would die within a few years unless you stayed on the very edges and outlying areas of the blast zone. This attempt to minimize the impact of Chernobyl by suggesting that some species managed to find a way to live in the environment is bizarre. You're not defending that generation of reactor design. It's not even clear to me why you want fission when RTG piles are much more practical for anything but the most heavy of industrial use.
???
Chernobyl being a place "where if most mammals go they die in agony" is patent nonsense. I quoted from the article linked above your post to suggest as much.
What on earth does RTG have to do with this discussion?
Chernobyl being a place "where if most mammals go they die in agony" is patent nonsense. I quoted from the article linked above your post to suggest as much.
What on earth does RTG have to do with this discussion?
You're quoting contested science and I'm offering a summary of the counter opinion. It is far from a consensus that Chernobyl has been a net good for the animals living there.
As for RTGs, I'm sorry did you lose the plot about power production at the top of this thread?
As for RTGs, I'm sorry did you lose the plot about power production at the top of this thread?
If distributed works I am all for distributed. But distributed does not always work nor is it always a superior option. Imagine we figure out cold fusion. That will probably always be "centralized", but it could be vastly superior to any other power source we can fathom to imagine.
Honestly, I am an anarchist. I detest hierarchy. I don't like centralization. But let us not make a religion out of it. Let us stay rational.
I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment. It is not perfect, far from it. It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.
Honestly, I am an anarchist. I detest hierarchy. I don't like centralization. But let us not make a religion out of it. Let us stay rational.
I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment. It is not perfect, far from it. It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.
> If distributed works I am all for distributed. But distributed does not always work nor is it always a superior option. Imagine we figure out cold fusion. That will probably always be "centralized", but it could be vastly superior to any other power source we can fathom to imagine.
Okay, imagined it. If we need that much power in one place then great. We'll work on it then. But for the majority of individuals, they'll never need close to that level of electricity.
> I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment.
Based off nothing other than handwavey arguments about how, "Look how this system which has been deployed at a tiny fraction of the scale of the other systems has fewer deaths when we specifically cut out fuel procurement but count atmospheric pollution even if that's difficult to avoid confounding?"
This is not a compelling line of argument. No more so than the "what if we suddenly have a fusion breakthrough won't you want thousands of lines of cabling then?"
> It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.
I don't recall us saying science was bad. Rather, it was, "Concentrating capital on ever larger energy ziggurats is not something that makes sense in 2019."
Sure. Let's look at Germany, where they literally have such an abundance of power they can't migrate their grids to use it fast enough so they pay people to use it? Or how they're now investing in inexpensive and locally sourced storage options because they can power over 90% of their peak demand on a good day?
These are "good problems to have." Certainly better than "How do we shield this drone enough that we can make contact with the melted fuel rods at Fukushima."
Okay, imagined it. If we need that much power in one place then great. We'll work on it then. But for the majority of individuals, they'll never need close to that level of electricity.
> I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment.
Based off nothing other than handwavey arguments about how, "Look how this system which has been deployed at a tiny fraction of the scale of the other systems has fewer deaths when we specifically cut out fuel procurement but count atmospheric pollution even if that's difficult to avoid confounding?"
This is not a compelling line of argument. No more so than the "what if we suddenly have a fusion breakthrough won't you want thousands of lines of cabling then?"
> It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.
I don't recall us saying science was bad. Rather, it was, "Concentrating capital on ever larger energy ziggurats is not something that makes sense in 2019."
Sure. Let's look at Germany, where they literally have such an abundance of power they can't migrate their grids to use it fast enough so they pay people to use it? Or how they're now investing in inexpensive and locally sourced storage options because they can power over 90% of their peak demand on a good day?
These are "good problems to have." Certainly better than "How do we shield this drone enough that we can make contact with the melted fuel rods at Fukushima."
I'm pretty sure uranium extraction in Africa is killing. Doen't seems to be taken in account in this 12yo study.
The associated article has more discussion and context:
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
I really dislike their headline "It goes completely against what most believe, but out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest" because it ignores solar, water and wind energy which is likely to be the safest and far from insignificant today and in the future.
1. I think hydro doesn't score so good after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
2. Wind is not without issues either: http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm
3. And even more moralities with people falling down their rooftop installing solar panels.
2. Wind is not without issues either: http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm
3. And even more moralities with people falling down their rooftop installing solar panels.
The problem with these kind of statistics is that mere numbers mean very little, because the sources of the deaths are very different. Do you count roof work? Do you count mining? Do you count the creation of construction materials and their mining? How do you count cancer from slightly increased nuclear radiation? Especially when it's hard to prove whether it really comes from nuclear waste, but it certainly could be? And are birth defects deaths? Are miscarriages?
These are things that need to be addressed for these kind of statistics, or you end up comparing apples to oranges.
Still, I think everybody can agree that the death rates for coal and oil are insane. However you compare nuclear vs solar, coal and oil need to go.
These are things that need to be addressed for these kind of statistics, or you end up comparing apples to oranges.
Still, I think everybody can agree that the death rates for coal and oil are insane. However you compare nuclear vs solar, coal and oil need to go.
Well then why not figure out the numbers so we can compare them to the others...?
Solar, wind, and water are all far more deadly than nuclear.
A more valid criticism might be to point out that radiation tends to kill slowly, while renewable deaths are fast (falls, drowning, construction accidents). The result is that nuclear accidents can be very disruptive without being directly deadly. (See the 160,000 people evacuated after Fukushima.)
A more valid criticism might be to point out that radiation tends to kill slowly, while renewable deaths are fast (falls, drowning, construction accidents). The result is that nuclear accidents can be very disruptive without being directly deadly. (See the 160,000 people evacuated after Fukushima.)
Erentz's link to Wikipedia has the same table, but here's one from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
Wind and solar are slightly more dangerous than nuclear, as of this data.
Wind and solar are slightly more dangerous than nuclear, as of this data.
It is odd; isn't it? It's a rather substantial component of the world's energy and wind and water have safety implications, but it isn't even considered here.
[deleted]
What would be interesting would be to have a poll of which forms of energy people think lead to the most deaths and put it next to this. I have a feeling nuclear would be the top.
The New York Times published an article that touched on this fairly recently too:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-ch...
The New York Times published an article that touched on this fairly recently too:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-ch...
Something people run into all the time when talking about toxicology is that generally people tend to believe that either a substance is safe or not safe, irrespective of the dose. The EPA says that 10 ppb of arsenic is perfectly fine in drinking water but I'm pretty sure most people would be horrified to learn that their water has any arsenic in it at all.
People naturally apply the same heuristics to nuclear fallout for the same reasons. Fallout seems equally bad whether it's a 10 S dose or a 10 uS dose. And just as arsenic poisoning is a real thing that happens, deadly fallout was and remains a very real danger from nuclear war. Any nuke will produce some but if you set a big one off near the ground, such as to hit an ICBM silo or a sub pen or a command bunker, and you'll produce a very large amount. At the height of the Cold War a US first strike on the Soviet block was expected to produce up to 100 million casualties in Western Europe from fallout if the wind was blowing the wrong way.
Given that magnitude of danger it's no wonder people hear "fallout" and think that they're all going to die.
People naturally apply the same heuristics to nuclear fallout for the same reasons. Fallout seems equally bad whether it's a 10 S dose or a 10 uS dose. And just as arsenic poisoning is a real thing that happens, deadly fallout was and remains a very real danger from nuclear war. Any nuke will produce some but if you set a big one off near the ground, such as to hit an ICBM silo or a sub pen or a command bunker, and you'll produce a very large amount. At the height of the Cold War a US first strike on the Soviet block was expected to produce up to 100 million casualties in Western Europe from fallout if the wind was blowing the wrong way.
Given that magnitude of danger it's no wonder people hear "fallout" and think that they're all going to die.
Would be more interesting to know what the actual damage from these different sources are, rather than just is one cherry-picked statistic.
And where are wind and solar?
And where are wind and solar?
Wikipedia has a table that still puts both above nuclear with rooftop solar at 440 per PWh and wind at 150 per PWh. (Doesn’t include other solar and I haven’t dug deep to verify those numbers.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities
Roofing is a dangerous profession, so rooftop solar is probably much more dangerous than other solar.
You need more solar panels to get the same amount of energy. So since all the practical risk factors in nuclear apply to solar, and solar requires more activity, we'd expect solar to have more deaths per energy unit.
That said, neither nuclear or solar really kills anyone per TWh, so solar might score better by statistical fluke since the variances are so low.
I personally suspect that we don't count sunburn -> skin cancer deaths from solar. If we did, the radiation risks would ironically be higher for it than for nuclear power. Still basically 0 though.
That said, neither nuclear or solar really kills anyone per TWh, so solar might score better by statistical fluke since the variances are so low.
I personally suspect that we don't count sunburn -> skin cancer deaths from solar. If we did, the radiation risks would ironically be higher for it than for nuclear power. Still basically 0 though.
If you add the solar at the time of building the roof you'd probably reduce this dramatically, as the house would probably be shrouded in scaffolding.
Yep, which to elaborate on your point means we could expect that number to be lower if it covered all solar.
Nuclear industry is notoriously shy about making comparisons to wind and solar.
No we aren't. I compare carbon emissions to wind and solar all the time. Nuclear's on par with wind, 4x lower carbon than solar PV, 40x lower than natural gas, 80x lower than coal.
Wind has a 35% capacity factor in the US, nuclear has 90%. Solar has 25%
Wind and solar capital cost is 4x lower than nuclear right now, thanks to the fact that they're at low generation fractions and have lots of fracked gas and hydro to integrate their variability. As generation fraction goes up, their cost goes up non-linearly. Nuclear cost is terrible right now. Some people are trying to bring it down, but no great progress yet. In 10-20 years when 20 countries have 20% or more variable renewables, nuclear will probably start looking really good again for deeply decarbonizing.
And nuclear roughly as few (and probably a little bit fewer) people than wind and solar per kWh generated, all of which are orders of magnitude safer than fossil. People fall off roofs installing solar panels and wind turbines catch fire and sometimes do ice-throw.
Wind has a 35% capacity factor in the US, nuclear has 90%. Solar has 25%
Wind and solar capital cost is 4x lower than nuclear right now, thanks to the fact that they're at low generation fractions and have lots of fracked gas and hydro to integrate their variability. As generation fraction goes up, their cost goes up non-linearly. Nuclear cost is terrible right now. Some people are trying to bring it down, but no great progress yet. In 10-20 years when 20 countries have 20% or more variable renewables, nuclear will probably start looking really good again for deeply decarbonizing.
And nuclear roughly as few (and probably a little bit fewer) people than wind and solar per kWh generated, all of which are orders of magnitude safer than fossil. People fall off roofs installing solar panels and wind turbines catch fire and sometimes do ice-throw.
This isn’t a nuclear industry source and they don’t include hydro either (which is also still higher than nuclear on other comparisons).
Many people who are interested in nuclear energy see it as a replacement for forms of energy that add carbon to the atmosphere. During normal operations (discarding commissioning and decommissioning) none of the three add significant carbon.
I don't believe in the numbers the nuclear industry publishes.
As long as you don't drop dead inside one of their reactors, they don't count nuclear energy as the reason (not surprising, if i were in their shoes I'd probably do the same).
By the way, why are solar panels and wind turbines missing in the list? It's awfully misleading.
--
Edit due to downvotes:
As an example, here's a study that came to the conclusion that leucemia is twice as common as normal among small children growing up near nuclear plants in Germany: http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/handle/urn:nbn:de:0221-20100317939 Why is noone counting the resulting deaths in these statistics for nuclear energy?
By the way, why are solar panels and wind turbines missing in the list? It's awfully misleading.
--
Edit due to downvotes:
As an example, here's a study that came to the conclusion that leucemia is twice as common as normal among small children growing up near nuclear plants in Germany: http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/handle/urn:nbn:de:0221-20100317939 Why is noone counting the resulting deaths in these statistics for nuclear energy?
Even if you take the most pessimistic estimate of the worst nuclear accident we experienced (Chernobyl) you top at <100k related death [0]. A far cry from the annual 4+ million death due to outdoor air quality [1].
Outside of direct exposure to radioactive material there isn't much going to kill you.
The very big difference is that a functioning nuclear plant doesn't kill people whereas the oil/gas industry kills by default even in the best case scenario.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
[1] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
Outside of direct exposure to radioactive material there isn't much going to kill you.
The very big difference is that a functioning nuclear plant doesn't kill people whereas the oil/gas industry kills by default even in the best case scenario.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
[1] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
If you're gonna talk air quality and radiaton you need to use YPLL (or some other metric that considers age). Wheezing into the grave at 70 or getting cancer at 65 is very different in terms of impact than a 25yo that falls off a roof installing solar or gets run over by heavy equipment in a mine.
Of course nobody uses age adjusted metrics because you can't make grandiose "bazillions of lives lost" claims using them.
Of course nobody uses age adjusted metrics because you can't make grandiose "bazillions of lives lost" claims using them.
The vast majority of people will never encounter any radiation caused by a radioactive plant in their life, so this line of thought doesn't even make sense.
> 91% of the world population live in area where air quality exceeds WHO guideline [0]
If I had the choice I'd go for a < 0.01% chance of dying of radiation related death over a 100% chance of slowly but surely destroying my respiratory system.
And let's be real, accident related deaths are a drop in the bucket.
[0] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
> 91% of the world population live in area where air quality exceeds WHO guideline [0]
If I had the choice I'd go for a < 0.01% chance of dying of radiation related death over a 100% chance of slowly but surely destroying my respiratory system.
And let's be real, accident related deaths are a drop in the bucket.
[0] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
What other deaths due to nuclear energy do you think are missing from the list? Uranium mining?
For one, increased occurances of cancer leading to death.
For example the rate of leucemia among small children living near nuclear plants in Germany is twice as high as average (see https://www.bfs.de/DE/bfs/wissenschaft-forschung/ergebnisse/... )
For example the rate of leucemia among small children living near nuclear plants in Germany is twice as high as average (see https://www.bfs.de/DE/bfs/wissenschaft-forschung/ergebnisse/... )
You'd need a solid theory to explain that to assure others it's not just poorly gathered data. Perhaps purposefully so.
In any case, the millions of tons of coal that Germany burns instead, thanks to German "greens", will cause a lot more death and suffering.
In any case, the millions of tons of coal that Germany burns instead, thanks to German "greens", will cause a lot more death and suffering.
> the rate of leucemia among small children living near nuclear plants in Germany is twice as high as average
Here is a 2013 British study, where kids born in the vicinity of British nuclear power plants, have less leukemia:
https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2013560
Here is a 2011 article that claims that the 2008 German study did not correct for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status:
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110506/full/news.2011.275.h...
Here is a 2013 British study, where kids born in the vicinity of British nuclear power plants, have less leukemia:
https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2013560
Here is a 2011 article that claims that the 2008 German study did not correct for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status:
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110506/full/news.2011.275.h...
Exactly. You can confirm a lot of bias looking at noisy data. This is what the Germans did in that study. Germany is very irrationally anti-nuclear. They shut down their nukes after Fukushima and replaced them with burning more coal, killing thousands of people in the process. They mean well but are totally misguided.
Do you have any verification for that suspicion? Even coal counts protected deaths from increased cancer rates.
See my other comment.
Fukushima has one official dead person from radiation. But what about the 1% increased cancer risk? Has noone dead from this cancer? Is noone going to die from it in the future?
The normal rate of Thyroid cancer among children in Japan is 0.35 per 100,000. In Fukushima the rate is now 13.4 children per 100,000. [1]
--
[1] http://www.ippnw.de/atomenergie/gesundheit/artikel/de/schild...
Fukushima has one official dead person from radiation. But what about the 1% increased cancer risk? Has noone dead from this cancer? Is noone going to die from it in the future?
The normal rate of Thyroid cancer among children in Japan is 0.35 per 100,000. In Fukushima the rate is now 13.4 children per 100,000. [1]
--
[1] http://www.ippnw.de/atomenergie/gesundheit/artikel/de/schild...
Nuclear accidents without iodine pills do indeed increase Thyroid cancers. This is a tragedy. Fortunately, Thyroid cancer these days is almost never fatal, it's totally treatable. However, this still affects the victims lives seriously.
The number of kids who get thyroid cancer from nuclear, however, is almost insignificant compared to the number of children who currently die from air pollution, not to mention the ones who will die from CO2 emissions causing global warming. Everything has risks. The risks from nuclear are exceedingly low.
The number of kids who get thyroid cancer from nuclear, however, is almost insignificant compared to the number of children who currently die from air pollution, not to mention the ones who will die from CO2 emissions causing global warming. Everything has risks. The risks from nuclear are exceedingly low.
I'd love to see "Clean Coal" on here.
And solar, wind, hydro-electric, thermo-electric, etc.
And solar, wind, hydro-electric, thermo-electric, etc.
"Clean Coal" is a meaningless marketing term. Unless you specify what that means. (It used to mean CCS - which doesn't exist at scale - or more efficient coal plants - which probably only makes a very minor difference, because they're still terribly inefficient.)
I know. I want it called out on the graph.
Since "Clean Coal" is more about marketing and some token gestures at carbon capture, it is already represented on this list.
But it is very surprising that hydro, wind and solar aren't on this list. It is a non-trivial component of the total power production of both the US and Europe.
But it is very surprising that hydro, wind and solar aren't on this list. It is a non-trivial component of the total power production of both the US and Europe.
What is “clean coal” other than nice sounding words?
That is for the "Clean Coal" with scrubbers and such that is used in the US and Europe. The coal numbers would look much worse if we were talking about plants in China.
[deleted]
.
We've had Chernobyl where the core was fully exposed and recently-high-power radionuclides were aerosolize by a graphite fire and the people in nearby population centers were not quickly evacuated nor given iodine tablets nor told to not drink the milk, and by the UN consensus study UNSCEAR (parallel to IPCC) showed that 60 first heroic responders died from acute radiation syndrome and "up to 4000" will die of early cancers, on top of a population where millions would die from cancer naturally (small increase). In later revisions, they refused to even give a number [1] due to uncertainties associated with the conservative linear no-threshold model.
Also: the operation error and design flaws at Chernobyl were astounding [2].
Then we had Fukushima, where an earthquake trigggered an automatic shutdown of the reactors, which worked great. Then the tsunami knocked out the backup cooling generators and decay heat melted fuel and released nuclides through an in-tact reactor vessel to the atmosphere. Multiple meltdowns. What does UNSCEAR have to say? 0 deaths from radiation. Some sources say "up to 1 death from radiation".
I think it's really, really hard to postulate millions dying from nuclear.
4 million die per year from air pollution due to non-nuclear energy [3].
[1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_20...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Accident
[3] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
Also: the operation error and design flaws at Chernobyl were astounding [2].
Then we had Fukushima, where an earthquake trigggered an automatic shutdown of the reactors, which worked great. Then the tsunami knocked out the backup cooling generators and decay heat melted fuel and released nuclides through an in-tact reactor vessel to the atmosphere. Multiple meltdowns. What does UNSCEAR have to say? 0 deaths from radiation. Some sources say "up to 1 death from radiation".
I think it's really, really hard to postulate millions dying from nuclear.
4 million die per year from air pollution due to non-nuclear energy [3].
[1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_20...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Accident
[3] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
Air pollution causes 4.2 million deaths a year.[1]
From the data in this link, we can infer that historically this adds up to 467 times nuclear.
[1] https://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/burden_tex...
From the data in this link, we can infer that historically this adds up to 467 times nuclear.
[1] https://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/burden_tex...
>One could imagine a nuclear accident where millions die.
I can't. Care to share?
I can't. Care to share?
The post is irresponsibly spreading fear based on imagination.
Sure. A Maximum Credible Accident (the industry term) at Turkey Point (near Miami) or Indian Point (near NYC).
I can see those potentially displacing millions. Can't imagine how millions would die.
How do you evacuate Miami or New York should an MCA occur? Large numbers of people would be irradiated while stuck in traffic.
I can only assume plans exist, otherwise the plants wouldn't be allowed to operate.
Potassium iodide would probably be distributed, which protects against thyroid cancers. Unless there's some gamma/neutron threat from failing plants I'm unaware of, people would probably stay put until they can safely evacuate. Even the inside of a car should be pretty safe.
It would suck, but I can't imagine a million people dying.
Potassium iodide would probably be distributed, which protects against thyroid cancers. Unless there's some gamma/neutron threat from failing plants I'm unaware of, people would probably stay put until they can safely evacuate. Even the inside of a car should be pretty safe.
It would suck, but I can't imagine a million people dying.
No, one couldn't. Chernobyl was a perfect storm of negligence and incompetence and still killed less than 60 people, including fallout cancer deaths. Nuclear reactors are not bombs.
I'm all for nuclear but let's be honest here, many more people died prematurely because of Chernobyl, the nuclear cloud were all over Europe, the thousands of people who were on site to contain the disaster got very high doses of radiation too.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
> In the published estimates below, studies have utilised a methodology termed the 'linear no-threshold model'
The numbers already round to 0 when compared to pretty much any other industrial process we undertake. Then on top of that the model used is the LNT. That model needs extraordinary evidence to support its wild assumptions. I haven't been able to find a source for that evidence yet.
LNT is a paranoid model. Under the LNT, building with granite is killing people through increased radiation. The airplane industry has probably killed more people with radiation under the LNT model than Chernobyl has. We have yet to picket airports for their radiation risk.
The unproovable deaths from Chernobyl may as well be ignored. We don't count that sort of statistical hypothesizing for any other anything that is comparable to building a power plant.
The numbers already round to 0 when compared to pretty much any other industrial process we undertake. Then on top of that the model used is the LNT. That model needs extraordinary evidence to support its wild assumptions. I haven't been able to find a source for that evidence yet.
LNT is a paranoid model. Under the LNT, building with granite is killing people through increased radiation. The airplane industry has probably killed more people with radiation under the LNT model than Chernobyl has. We have yet to picket airports for their radiation risk.
The unproovable deaths from Chernobyl may as well be ignored. We don't count that sort of statistical hypothesizing for any other anything that is comparable to building a power plant.
> While there is rough agreement that a total of either 31 or 54 people died from blast trauma or Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster (see § Differing direct, short-term death toll counts), there is considerable debate concerning the accurate number of deaths due to the disaster's long-term health effects, with estimates ranging from 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia), to no fewer than 93,000 (per the conflicting conclusions of various scientific, health, environmental, and survivors' organizations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
More like at least 4000 and up to nearly 100000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
More like "up to 4000" in a population that would have had millions of cancer deaths says the UN scientist group (like IPCC but for Chernobyl) and nearly 1,000,000 says one whack-job who anti-nukes picked up and pointed at for years.
60 people? The cleanup crew had far more deaths than that.
Nope. It was 60 from short-term ARS, plus "up to 4000" early cancer fatalities over the decades in a population where a few million would get natural cancers anyway. [1]
[1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_20...
If you're going to say stuff, please provide credible references. There are some whackjob studies that say 1000000 died from Chernobyl, but they've been discredited by the scientists of the UN working groups. Even Greenpeace doesn't believe that number. UNSCEAR is the Chernobyl equivalent of today's IPCC for climate change.
[1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_20...
If you're going to say stuff, please provide credible references. There are some whackjob studies that say 1000000 died from Chernobyl, but they've been discredited by the scientists of the UN working groups. Even Greenpeace doesn't believe that number. UNSCEAR is the Chernobyl equivalent of today's IPCC for climate change.
Sure... Here's one:
https://www.wired.com/story/chernobyl-liquidators-photo-gall...
https://www.wired.com/story/chernobyl-liquidators-photo-gall...
Wired. The most credible of references.
Questioning one's credulity without any factual basis to discredit the argument at hand is a form of ad hominem attack. I've noticed these are common when the topic of nukes comes up. Everyone who disputes any industry claim is labeled an idiot, a whacko, etc. Not a great debate technique, IMHO.
That's exactly what the climate change deniers say about the IPCC studies. In this case, I am quoting UN groups of scientists and you are throwing up wired articles. There is some level of respect for scientific consensus that we need to have. Certainly, skepticism must be considered, but people who keep throwing up fringe skeptical articles on highly politicized information eventually appear to be lacking good faith.
You have to understand that pro-nuclear people are lambasted with popular culture that's highly anti-nuclear. Simpsons, MacGyver, Captain planet, HBO, Peter Paul and Mary wishing we had more wood stoves, everything. You can see why we might be a little more sensitive to misinformation. We have more work to do to get the science out there.
You have to understand that pro-nuclear people are lambasted with popular culture that's highly anti-nuclear. Simpsons, MacGyver, Captain planet, HBO, Peter Paul and Mary wishing we had more wood stoves, everything. You can see why we might be a little more sensitive to misinformation. We have more work to do to get the science out there.
And I would say that those of us who are equally well informed and still opposed (ie: Arnie Gunderson) also have more work to do to get the truth out there. It's good to live in a place where we have that option.
The fact is that the nuclear industry is dying out all over the world. It's not a fact they want to admit, but still a fact, regardless.
Accidents of the Fukushima level are only ok if they don't affect where you live. Fear of such an event is not irrational, with most of today's plants approaching or exceeding their design lifespans.
The fact is that the nuclear industry is dying out all over the world. It's not a fact they want to admit, but still a fact, regardless.
Accidents of the Fukushima level are only ok if they don't affect where you live. Fear of such an event is not irrational, with most of today's plants approaching or exceeding their design lifespans.
Global warming affects everyone regardless of where we live. That's a much bigger existential threat than nuclear accidents. More environmentalists are starting to understand this.
Lots of nukes getting built outside the USA. In USA economics of cheap natural gas are causing closures. This is stupid and should be adjusted by counting carbon as an externality in the market.
Lots of nukes getting built outside the USA. In USA economics of cheap natural gas are causing closures. This is stupid and should be adjusted by counting carbon as an externality in the market.
Here's another...
http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121214.pdf
http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121214.pdf
Death is unlikely, but permanent contamination with resulting shortened lifespan and nasty conditions is the risk. Especially birth defects. Doesn't fit neatly into a headline number.
You might be surprised to know that increased birth defects were never detected in the population irradiated by Chernobyl. This is surprising considering the scare-literature that has come out on it, but it turns out if you look you can find birth defects everywhere.
And also, the land is not permanently uninhabitable. You have to postulate that living things have no tolerance above background radiation to say that. But there are lots of reasons to think that's not true at all. For instance, places like Ramsar, Iran have background levels 80x normal and there's no sign of decreased lifespan or other health impacts.
Also, checkout this wildlife around Chernobyl: https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...
And also, the land is not permanently uninhabitable. You have to postulate that living things have no tolerance above background radiation to say that. But there are lots of reasons to think that's not true at all. For instance, places like Ramsar, Iran have background levels 80x normal and there's no sign of decreased lifespan or other health impacts.
Also, checkout this wildlife around Chernobyl: https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...
Yes, really. Well, I should clarify that increased birth defects have never been linked to increased radiation. Behold:
"But Wertelecki is keen to point out that the study does not claim that radiation exposure is definitively the cause of the defects. The study lacked data about prenatal drinking and the diet of mothers in the region, he stresses. Both are key to under-standing the causes of the defects as fetal exposure to alcohol and a lack of folates during pregnancy can lead to both types of birth defects.Alcoholism is rife in the Ukraine and generally low standards of living for much of the population also mean diet can be poor. “Alcohol and folates are among the factors involved in certain birth defects. A lack of folates combined with ionizing radiation could multiply the risks of birth defects or at least greatly enhance them. Alcohol is a factor in microcephaly, as ionizing radiation can also be, and combined their effects could be enhanced”, says Weretlecki."
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...
"But Wertelecki is keen to point out that the study does not claim that radiation exposure is definitively the cause of the defects. The study lacked data about prenatal drinking and the diet of mothers in the region, he stresses. Both are key to under-standing the causes of the defects as fetal exposure to alcohol and a lack of folates during pregnancy can lead to both types of birth defects.Alcoholism is rife in the Ukraine and generally low standards of living for much of the population also mean diet can be poor. “Alcohol and folates are among the factors involved in certain birth defects. A lack of folates combined with ionizing radiation could multiply the risks of birth defects or at least greatly enhance them. Alcohol is a factor in microcephaly, as ionizing radiation can also be, and combined their effects could be enhanced”, says Weretlecki."
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...
I'm very pleased that they didn't claim direct correlation, as you never can - regardless - it is a possible outcome and that a marked and measurable increase was seen in that area is important. And goes against your statement in the parent comment. Yes a link cannot be proven but birth defects did increase.
"You might be surprised to know that increased birth defects were never detected in the population irradiated by Chernobyl." was what you stated and I've just shown that is not true. The cause is unknown but your statement is provably incorrect.
"You might be surprised to know that increased birth defects were never detected in the population irradiated by Chernobyl." was what you stated and I've just shown that is not true. The cause is unknown but your statement is provably incorrect.
Sure. I've conceded that birth defects may have gone up. But I've shown that there's no evidence that it's related to radiation, which presumably was the point of your original reply. Birth defects going up because people drank more alcohol as the USSR failed (which is just as or more likely than because of Chernobyl) is irrelevant to this thread.
My personal concern is the waste that we have no way of properly handling and no real plans for.
Give me a proper plan and I'd be fully behind nuclear (well - if it was self funding - currently hugely subsidised and still one of the most expensive ways to make power).
That said - my alternative isn't 'more coal' - it is a combination of renewables and trying to reduce our energy usage. But I know that both of these won't be the breakthrough that we need without cheap storage.
Give me a proper plan and I'd be fully behind nuclear (well - if it was self funding - currently hugely subsidised and still one of the most expensive ways to make power).
That said - my alternative isn't 'more coal' - it is a combination of renewables and trying to reduce our energy usage. But I know that both of these won't be the breakthrough that we need without cheap storage.
Because of nuclear's high energy density, it's the only energy source that we can account for and store all the waste for the entire lifetime. It is solid ceramic waste that sits in passively cooled steel and concrete containers on parking lots. 3 decades of waste powering a large city fit in a small parking lot. Commercial nuclear waste has never injured anyone. We have consensus technical solutions (deep geologic repository), including one operational repository at WIPP. We just have to get people to stop stonewalling so we can put it in them.
Here's my buddy Jim standing in a parking lot full of decades worth of nuclear waste [1].
The Finns decided to solve their nuclear waste issues and have a repository under construction. [2]
Meanwhile, millions die per year from air pollution and carbon concentration just peaked 415 ppm. I think nuclear waste is honestly a tiny concern compared to those things.
Nuclear operations are not hugely subsidized in the US. They get about 1% of the tax subsidies given to energy sources. They are struggling economically because fracked natural gas pulled the floor out of electricity prices, and nuclear O&M can't just reduce itself with lower fossil prices. In France, where natural gas is more expensive, their nuclear fleet is 20% cheaper than gas.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Here's my buddy Jim standing in a parking lot full of decades worth of nuclear waste [1].
The Finns decided to solve their nuclear waste issues and have a repository under construction. [2]
Meanwhile, millions die per year from air pollution and carbon concentration just peaked 415 ppm. I think nuclear waste is honestly a tiny concern compared to those things.
Nuclear operations are not hugely subsidized in the US. They get about 1% of the tax subsidies given to energy sources. They are struggling economically because fracked natural gas pulled the floor out of electricity prices, and nuclear O&M can't just reduce itself with lower fossil prices. In France, where natural gas is more expensive, their nuclear fleet is 20% cheaper than gas.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
You are (purposefully?) confusing spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Many hundreds of thousands or tonnes of HLW are produced each year and also need dealing with.
Long-lived high-level nuclear waste, colloquially known as nuclear waste, as in "but what do you do with the waste" IS spent nuclear fuel. There's also low-level rad waste that goes in special landfills but no one worries too much about that.
This is fission products, actinides, and uranium-238.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_w...
This is fission products, actinides, and uranium-238.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_w...
There are plans for it, use a next generation reactor that uses waste as fuel. That may take a few decades but it seems the most capitalistic way, and thus the most likely way.
And if solar and wind and storage become cheap enough that the next generation reactors are never needed? Then what?
A plan based on tech which either isn't created or not yet deployable is a little too handwavy for me.
A plan based on tech which either isn't created or not yet deployable is a little too handwavy for me.
Then we'll be worried about the environmental and economic implications of mining for, manufacturing, maintaining, replacing, and recycling that scale of steel, fiberglass, glass, concrete, rare earths, and 10000 skyscrapers of lithium per USA-sized-country.
Recall that in winter there is 4x less sun, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow for 10 days in a row across massive multi-state regions. The storage implications of that are ludicrous. It's far cheaper to decarbonize with a good mix of variable renewables and nuclear, even with nuclear at its current high price.
Recall that in winter there is 4x less sun, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow for 10 days in a row across massive multi-state regions. The storage implications of that are ludicrous. It's far cheaper to decarbonize with a good mix of variable renewables and nuclear, even with nuclear at its current high price.
We literally do not have time for "few decades". This is why we're building out renewables at the rate we are.
(Also, the breeder reactors only use spent fuel - most "waste" by volume is lower level waste of various kinds. Especially from decommissioning.)
(Also, the breeder reactors only use spent fuel - most "waste" by volume is lower level waste of various kinds. Especially from decommissioning.)
Totally this - I've often seen it stated that all the spent nuclear fuel in the world could fit in a lorry. Great - whoop.
But that ignores the huge amount of other radioactive wastes that are generated each day, and have no 'useful' future ahead of them right now - other than landfill in a 'secure' site.
Totally agree that we need to stop polluting our air and needlessly killing 4 million people a year with emissions - but we really need a realistic plan if we are going to go the nuclear route.
But that ignores the huge amount of other radioactive wastes that are generated each day, and have no 'useful' future ahead of them right now - other than landfill in a 'secure' site.
Totally agree that we need to stop polluting our air and needlessly killing 4 million people a year with emissions - but we really need a realistic plan if we are going to go the nuclear route.
I really could not. Nuclear power stations are not nuclear bombs and current nuclear technology is way safer than those that caused main problems.
Yes, nuclear power stations are safe. But they can lead to nuclear weapons proliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
> Many UN and US agencies warn that building more nuclear reactors unavoidably increases nuclear proliferation risks.
> Canada sold India the reactor on the condition that the reactor and any by-products would be "employed for peaceful purposes only.". Similarly, the United States sold India heavy water for use in the reactor "only... in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes". India, in violation of these agreements, used the Canadian-supplied reactor and American-supplied heavy water to produce plutonium for their first nuclear explosion, Smiling Buddha.
> Many UN and US agencies warn that building more nuclear reactors unavoidably increases nuclear proliferation risks.
> Canada sold India the reactor on the condition that the reactor and any by-products would be "employed for peaceful purposes only.". Similarly, the United States sold India heavy water for use in the reactor "only... in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes". India, in violation of these agreements, used the Canadian-supplied reactor and American-supplied heavy water to produce plutonium for their first nuclear explosion, Smiling Buddha.
I've worked in oil & gas, and the deaths come primarily from human error, which increases as operations scale up, as you end up hiring people who are not already experienced at running plants, and have to train them up -- mistakes happen.
So what we need to ask to be sure nuclear is really as safe as the number makes it appear is... what happens when we scale up and introduce more new employees, and more errors? What is the worst thing that can happen if a new worker makes a bone-headed move and causes an incident?
I honestly don't know the answer, and would be interested in hearing more. But I'm not going to be sold on nuclear safety by a chart, not when I've seen how crazy hard it is to keep a large operations staff in energy plants safety-conscious enough to prevent accidents, injury, and deaths. These are human issues that need to be addressed to be sure safety levels stay on track.
So what we need to ask to be sure nuclear is really as safe as the number makes it appear is... what happens when we scale up and introduce more new employees, and more errors? What is the worst thing that can happen if a new worker makes a bone-headed move and causes an incident?
I honestly don't know the answer, and would be interested in hearing more. But I'm not going to be sold on nuclear safety by a chart, not when I've seen how crazy hard it is to keep a large operations staff in energy plants safety-conscious enough to prevent accidents, injury, and deaths. These are human issues that need to be addressed to be sure safety levels stay on track.
> I've worked in oil & gas, and the deaths come primarily from human error
The article says:
> Deaths related to air pollution are dominant, typically accounting for greater than 99% of the total.
I understand that you are talking about a subset of the data the article are talking about. But if 99% is due to pollution then it sounds like your subset is not so relevant.
The article says:
> Deaths related to air pollution are dominant, typically accounting for greater than 99% of the total.
I understand that you are talking about a subset of the data the article are talking about. But if 99% is due to pollution then it sounds like your subset is not so relevant.
Thank you, I had missed that.
While that does strengthen the point of the chart, it doesn't invalidate my concerns. It was almost 10 years ago now, but I recall an incident that made national news, when a gas hub in Texas exploded, and there were impressive, but sobering, photos of flames shooting 500 feet into the air from the resulting fire. That is one worst-cases for oil & gas. Some of the spills we've had from tankers are other worst-cases. And they do happen.
So again, I need to know what the worst-case for nuclear is before I'm going to be sold on it. Because if it scales to the capacity of our gas industry... something will happen. And we need to know what it will be and be ready to handle it.
While that does strengthen the point of the chart, it doesn't invalidate my concerns. It was almost 10 years ago now, but I recall an incident that made national news, when a gas hub in Texas exploded, and there were impressive, but sobering, photos of flames shooting 500 feet into the air from the resulting fire. That is one worst-cases for oil & gas. Some of the spills we've had from tankers are other worst-cases. And they do happen.
So again, I need to know what the worst-case for nuclear is before I'm going to be sold on it. Because if it scales to the capacity of our gas industry... something will happen. And we need to know what it will be and be ready to handle it.
That's nowhere near a worst case for oil&gas. It's the most visible spectacular case. The worst case is mass extinction events due to climate change. The worst case that's actually happened is a million deaths/yr due to air pollution. Accidents are barely a blip in the calculus, the bulk of the damage happens even when everything is working as intended.
You don't have to sell me on the poisonous nature of oil & gas. It is a given that those are bad ideas and need to go away. The real debate is wind/solar/geothermal/hydro. Once pollution and climate change is removed from the equation, accidents absolutely come into the calculus.
Does this include deaths from oil wars?
Though initially I was inclined to treat this as a troll, this is actually a good point. Major power consumers can acquire solar and wind energy without causing widespread destruction to other countries. Not so for oil, and to a much lesser extent that I think has not been realized since the 1940's, uranium.
It certainly wasn't intended as a troll, fwiw.
Is uranium mining included in these numbers?
Edit: it seems to be what mainly contributed to the nuclear numbers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067360...
> The sources of the effects and indeed the effects themselves for the nuclear fuel cycle are very different from those for the fossil fuel cycles. They can arise from occupational effects (especially from mining), routine radiation during generation, decommissioning, reprocessing, low-level waste disposal, high-level waste disposal, and accidents.
Edit: it seems to be what mainly contributed to the nuclear numbers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067360...
> The sources of the effects and indeed the effects themselves for the nuclear fuel cycle are very different from those for the fossil fuel cycles. They can arise from occupational effects (especially from mining), routine radiation during generation, decommissioning, reprocessing, low-level waste disposal, high-level waste disposal, and accidents.
Recall that because it's getting energy from the nucleus rather than from electron shells, there is 2,000,000x more energy in the mined raw material when you're using nuclear. That's why a train car of nuclear fuel per year can power a city, where a coal plant needs a mile-long train car per day. Nuclear energy density is crazy high. So you don't have to mine a lot, you don't have a lot of waste, you don't need lots of land, and you don't emit any carbon dioxide.
See: https://www.xkcd.com/1162/
See: https://www.xkcd.com/1162/
The uranium cycle requires heavy equipment (dozers, loaders, trains, trucks, etc), all of which run on fossil fuels, so it's not "carbon free."
That's included in the number of 11 gCO2-eq/kWh. Please refer to this comment where you were lightly reprimanded for saying that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905223
I say carbon-free for anything that's under 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (so I can include solar), which is 10x less than natural gas, 20x less than coal. Nuclear is 40x less natural gas! It's the lowest carbon energy source we know, tied with wind.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905223
I say carbon-free for anything that's under 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (so I can include solar), which is 10x less than natural gas, 20x less than coal. Nuclear is 40x less natural gas! It's the lowest carbon energy source we know, tied with wind.
Thanks but you've said elsewhere that you work in the nuclear industry. HN is not a place where we need to "reprimand" each other.
We do need to provide meaningful feedback to things that are incorrect, such as the suggestion that nuclear is not tied with wind as the lowest-carbon full-lifecycle energy source we know.
I chose to work in the nuclear industry specifically to help avert climate change. I was like: "I want to help reduce climate change. Aha, nuclear is interesting because it's low-carbon and also not perfected. That's a good challenging problem to work on!"
This doesn't invalidate anything I've said. In fact, it bolsters things I say because it means I know what I'm talking about.
I chose to work in the nuclear industry specifically to help avert climate change. I was like: "I want to help reduce climate change. Aha, nuclear is interesting because it's low-carbon and also not perfected. That's a good challenging problem to work on!"
This doesn't invalidate anything I've said. In fact, it bolsters things I say because it means I know what I'm talking about.
That's fine and you're free to do that, but it doesn't make what I said "incorrect." The uranium cycle uses carbon and, what's worse, produces vast amount of tailings (radioactive waste) which contaminate land and water. This is in addition to the spent fuel rods which most people think of as "nuclear waste." I hope that you could agree that those are true statements.
By that standard, there are no carbon-free energy sources.
[deleted]
So people should stop claiming that nuclear is one. It's an advertising term used by the industry, nothing more.
Nuclear fission is neutron + uranium = fission products and energy. This process is literally carbon-free. Solar PV is photons + semiconductors = electric current. This is directly carbon-free. Wind is wind + blades = mechanical motion. This is directly carbon-free. Coal, natural gas, oil, and biomass are Carbon + heat in the presence of oxygen is CO2 + energy. These are not carbon-free. This is the purpose of the term carbon-free.
Now, literally everything has non-zero carbon lifecycle costs as long as we are using carbon-derived energy in our infrastructure. It is impossible to be fully carbon-free with coal, natural gas, oil even if all your infrastructure is electric. With solar, nuclear, wind, etc., you can get to a truly carbon-free lifecycle if you work hard to electrify or otherwise clean up your trucks.
Meanwhile, today, nuclear lifecycle is the most carbon-free overall, tied with wind.
The term carbon-free is used colloquially to mean anything that doesn't directly make carbon alongside energy. It is right and proper to point out lifecycle carbon costs too, and again nuclear is tied for lowest lifecycle.
Nuclear is the most carbon-free thing we have. You bet it is advertising. It's truthful advertising of the positive characteristics of nuclear energy. People have a right to know how carbon free various energy sources are.
Now, literally everything has non-zero carbon lifecycle costs as long as we are using carbon-derived energy in our infrastructure. It is impossible to be fully carbon-free with coal, natural gas, oil even if all your infrastructure is electric. With solar, nuclear, wind, etc., you can get to a truly carbon-free lifecycle if you work hard to electrify or otherwise clean up your trucks.
Meanwhile, today, nuclear lifecycle is the most carbon-free overall, tied with wind.
The term carbon-free is used colloquially to mean anything that doesn't directly make carbon alongside energy. It is right and proper to point out lifecycle carbon costs too, and again nuclear is tied for lowest lifecycle.
Nuclear is the most carbon-free thing we have. You bet it is advertising. It's truthful advertising of the positive characteristics of nuclear energy. People have a right to know how carbon free various energy sources are.
But people DO claim that wind, solar and hydro are 'green' or 'carbon-neutral' or 'carbon-free' energy sources, so it's fair to hold nuclear to the same standards. And nuclear more than meets those standards.
Only enforcing those standards for nuclear feels like an isolated demand for rigor.
Only enforcing those standards for nuclear feels like an isolated demand for rigor.
Breathing produces carbon dioxide; so you aren't going to get very far with that sort of argument. Nothing is carbon free.
The heavy equipment is not going to produce enough carbon to be worth measuring on a per kW basis. The energy density of nuclear fuel is just too high.
The heavy equipment is not going to produce enough carbon to be worth measuring on a per kW basis. The energy density of nuclear fuel is just too high.
It is not fully carbon free, yes; but compared to fossil fuels, it practically is.
"Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont...
I think when talking about nuclear accidents, there is too much a focus on the actual death rate, but not on the impact of the evacuation area.
For example, if you look at Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant location on a map and create a 80 km radius exclusion zone, Luxembourg, as a country probably ceases to exist. This is not something that could happen with a catastrophic failure of wind turbines or solar panel.
By definition, nuclear plants are near coastal areas or a river, so prone to ocean rising water (or tsunamis), floods or droughts.
This is something that is harder to evaluate than simply a death count.
I believe this is less relevant for the US, where I assume there is enough space left in sparsely populated areas, but in denser areas like in Europe or South East Asia, it seems to be a bigger factor.
For example, if you look at Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant location on a map and create a 80 km radius exclusion zone, Luxembourg, as a country probably ceases to exist. This is not something that could happen with a catastrophic failure of wind turbines or solar panel.
By definition, nuclear plants are near coastal areas or a river, so prone to ocean rising water (or tsunamis), floods or droughts.
This is something that is harder to evaluate than simply a death count.
I believe this is less relevant for the US, where I assume there is enough space left in sparsely populated areas, but in denser areas like in Europe or South East Asia, it seems to be a bigger factor.
It's hard to make a call about when to evacuate in the midst of an accident. I tend to think short-term evacuation in things like Fukushima makes lots of sense. But then let people move back based on science of low-dose radiation. There's a lot of misinformation about radiation and public information. If you say something like: "The dose rate you will get if you stay is thought to take about 10 days off your life, vs. 4000 days if you drink too much booze" people may not evacuate as much.
You could even say: "Fear of radiation is more dangerous than radiation itself"
https://aeon.co/ideas/fear-of-radiation-is-more-dangerous-th...
You could even say: "Fear of radiation is more dangerous than radiation itself"
https://aeon.co/ideas/fear-of-radiation-is-more-dangerous-th...
Just a nit, as petre said the 80km number you use as a radius seems high. Chernobyl was 30km, Fukushima looks to be between 30-40km on it's longest stretch. But even the more realistic 30km number is still more than enough to potentially hit most of southern Luxembourg where all the population is, if that's the way the wind was blowing.
The implication of France having a nuclear accident that causes damage to neighboring Luxembourg is that France is at fault and owes reparation to Luxembourg. Or that France should not be allowed by international law to do something like this that puts Luxembourg at risk.
If that's the case we must also accept the same thinking for the nations affected by climate change against the largest emitters of CO2. Which will put many nations, including Luxembourg which is a huge emitter of CO2 per capita (above the USA) on the hook. Things are complicated.
The implication of France having a nuclear accident that causes damage to neighboring Luxembourg is that France is at fault and owes reparation to Luxembourg. Or that France should not be allowed by international law to do something like this that puts Luxembourg at risk.
If that's the case we must also accept the same thinking for the nations affected by climate change against the largest emitters of CO2. Which will put many nations, including Luxembourg which is a huge emitter of CO2 per capita (above the USA) on the hook. Things are complicated.
An 80 km exclusion zone is a gross exageration. There hasn't been such a huge exclusion zone, not even in the cases of Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Fair enough, 80 km is some kind of absurd extreme value, but Luxembourg city centre is about 25 km from Cattenom, so you can at least expect some real estate upheaval at the very least.
At the tiny, tiny scale of risk we are talking about I'm not certain it makes sense to worry. Statistically, the inhabitants of Luxembourg are more at risk of being driven out by hostile forces (they were invaded in WWII, for example) than threatened by a nuclear disaster.
Not to mention that of the 2 major nuclear disasters we've had, half were caused by a less-than-once-in-a-generation tsunami. If something that disastrous hits Luxembourg ... I dunno, the situation would already be pretty grim. And all this is assuming they actually need to be evacuated, which is debatable in itself.
Fun fact, it is possible to build a world-class city in 40 years [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen
Not to mention that of the 2 major nuclear disasters we've had, half were caused by a less-than-once-in-a-generation tsunami. If something that disastrous hits Luxembourg ... I dunno, the situation would already be pretty grim. And all this is assuming they actually need to be evacuated, which is debatable in itself.
Fun fact, it is possible to build a world-class city in 40 years [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen
It will probably be closed down before 2030 anyway.
The 80km (actually 50mi) evacuation requirement was made up by the complete idiot Gregory Jaczko, at the time, unfortunately, chairman of the NRC, but still stupid enough to think that zircalloy can burn in air. Yes, this stupid and corrupt man has done a lot more damage than any nuclear power plant ever could.
Can you please not blame a technology for the idiocy of a professional liar?
Can you please not blame a technology for the idiocy of a professional liar?
> By definition, nuclear plants are near coastal areas or a river, so prone to ocean rising water (or tsunamis), floods or droughts.
Not always. The Palo Verde nuclear generating station is in the middle of the desert.
(Ok, technically it's near the Gila river, but there's rarely water in that part of the Gila river anymore.)
Not always. The Palo Verde nuclear generating station is in the middle of the desert.
(Ok, technically it's near the Gila river, but there's rarely water in that part of the Gila river anymore.)
It would be nice if people focused on the actual death rate as they are very low.
Here is the entire data download that is actually included for this chart:
With it lacking any discussion of what these quite mysterious counts mean - this is often taken as proof of safety. Yet Nuclears exceptional score could be transformed by the kind of catastrophic accident which nuclear is capable of and which by great expense and some luck has avoided to date.
For example if weather during Fukushimas accident had blown fallout over Tokyo, or if a reactor anywhere releases similar or greater amounts of fallout anywhere in the world where a large population center is downwind, many thousands of cancers are possible, with children disproportionately affected by radiation exposure. Large areas of land can be made uninhabitable to civilization for decades or more, and depending on future civilizations standards.