
I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned - fludlight
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html
======
erentz
> As the certainty of climate change grew clearer, nuclear power presented a
> dilemma for environmentalists: Was the risk of accidents or further spread
> of nuclear weapons greater than the hazard of climate change?

That nuclear weapons are spread by nuclear power is false. The type of nuclear
plant that is optimized for producing power does not produce the right kind of
products for nuclear weapons. These are produced in reactors more optimized
for that task. Second, there are 31 countries operating nuclear power plants,
but only 9 countries that have decided to develop nuclear weapons.

> In 2016, observing these trends, I launched a company devoted to building
> offshore wind turbines.

There were a lot of assertions in this article, but very little meat to back
them up. I'd have liked much more detail on how he thinks alternative energy
sources will economically meet all electricity needs globally, and more safely
over the full life cycle.

~~~
thebeefytaco
Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest, including wind power.

>In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in
2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity
factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs
produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources). --
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-
ea...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-
wind-turbines-kill-humans/#583acd1b5467)

Nuclear power has 0.07 deaths per TWh. ([https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-
the-safest-form-of-energy](https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-
of-energy))

1 TWh = 1 billion kWh, so multiply by 1,000 to get trillion kWh and you have
~70 deaths for nuclear, compared to 1,000 for wind per trillion kWh.

Fairly small sample size for wind power deaths vs nuclear (someone let me know
if you find a better source), but I'd be very surprised if it didn't hold up
with a more complete set of data. There have only been a trivial amount of
nuclear power related deaths throughout history, with less than 10 deaths in
the last 33 years.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#Nuclear_power_plant_accidents)

~~~
ncmncm
These are cooked numbers. How many died constructing nuke plants? How many
mining, refining, processing, transporting fuel and fuel handling equipment?
How many died of radioactive krypton gas poisoning after 3MI? (No, not zero.)
Zirconium refining, alone, accounts for plenty of deaths.

The author clearly has access to far better information than defenders posting
here.

Just the fact that all nuke plants in operation were designed to withstand
much less severe weather and flooding events than are now expected, with no
requirements or plans for improvement, justify shutdown.

~~~
xelxebar
Then you have to play fair. How many died constructing wind turbines? How many
mining, refining, processing, transporting the construction materials and
equipment? How many died of pollution generated in the manufacturing process.
Etc...

Admittedly, I don't know the actual data, but as far as I understand, people
have made attempts to factor in these kinds of side costs, like estimating
deaths caused by Chernobyl, and even with those factors, nuclear still comes
out looking a lot safer.

[https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy)

------
cududa
The guys a wind energy lobbyist. Dunno why WaPo would even publish this

~~~
pensatoio
They published it because it fits their narrative.

~~~
anfilt
At the top left the article it shows:

 _Perspective - Perspective Discussion of news topics with a point of view,
including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences_

Honestly, I think news sites should make clear when an article is opinion
piece, and therefore should be read critically. That's regardless of what you
think of media bias.

~~~
kennywinker
The whole thing is written from a first-person perspective. It’s titled “...
now I think”. It’s so exceedingly obvious that it is an opinion piece, even
having the “perspective” line in the header seems like overkill to me....

------
eindiran
His Wikipedia page has some very interesting context. The "Policy positions"
and "Management style and resignation" sections are very interesting.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko)

------
anfilt
I really wish there was not so much fear mongering around nuclear energy.

~~~
ncmncm
I wish there was not so much mindless boosterism.

At no point was there ever a rational expectation of cost-effective nuke power
generation, despite all the transparent "too cheap to meter" lies spread at
the beginning. The original and remaining purpose was to provide an industrial
base for weapons production processes.

Money for tokamak fusion research has a similar purpose: a jobs program for
high-neutron-flux physicists, to maintain a pool available for weapons work.
There is no plausible expectation of ever getting practical power generation
from tokamaks.

