
Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest (2017) - open-source-ux
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
======
etrautmann
Somehow they didn't include solar, wind, geothermal, or hyrdo in this
analysis? It's still a good point though I'd imagine all of those would have
similarly low mortality rates.

~~~
mchannon
Solar and wind might surprise you. Anytime you're working on a rooftop or on a
tower, your risk of falling to your death is not zero.

Hydro is in a special case too, because a sudden dam collapse could kill
thousands of people in the blink of an eye. Johnstown Flood Disaster comes to
mind. Whether you blame the collapse on the hydropower is another question.

Call me a crackpot, but I believe geothermal may be worse than the rest put
together. By leaching the heat the earth needs to "lubricate" its plate
tectonics, I think you might be delaying, amplifying, and shifting the focus
of the earthquakes. I think our overdue Hayward earthquake is being influenced
by the GWh of heat energy taken out at Salton Trough and the Geysers. Force is
building up like in an engine you let the oil out of. I theorize we're about
to find out what the Earth-scale equivalent of throwing a rod is.

~~~
macspoofing
>Call me a crackpot, but I believe geothermal may be worse than the rest put
together. By leaching the heat the earth needs to "lubricate" its plate
tectonics, I think you might be delaying, amplifying, and shifting the focus
of the earthquakes.

I cannot imagine that we are anywhere close to technologically capable of
having even a miniscule impact on plate tectonics.

~~~
mchannon
Interesting. Trade “the planet’s climate” for “plate tectonics” and you’ll
find a lot of like-minded Americans, particularly in Congress.

~~~
woodandsteel
The Earth's crust has something like a million times the mass of its
atmosphere.

~~~
mchannon
Actually, TIL (a google search revealed) it's only 5 times more massive.

~~~
philipkglass
That is not correct either.

Earth's crust: 2.77 * 10^22 kg

[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.V33A1161P](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.V33A1161P)

Earth's atmosphere: 5.15 * 10^18 kg

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and_mass)

The crust is about five _thousand_ times more massive.

~~~
mchannon
The factor of 1000 difference is what you get when you accidentally forget to
convert between kg and tonnes.

5000 it is.

------
erAck
They did not include any numbers on wind, solar, hydro, tide, ... renewable
energy; limiting the comparison to "the dominant" energy sources what they
call "all major energy sources" shows how narrow the researchers' plate is.

World hydro power generation has already a greater percentage than nuclear
fission, not in the U.S. though.. Add other renewable resources and all
renewable surpass gas. Oil plays almost no role in energy generation. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods_of_generating_electricity)

~~~
mpweiher
Doesn't change the picture. Hydro is surprisingly dangerous, in fact the
single largest disaster involving an energy source was a dam that burst in
China, killing 171,000 people.

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

Overview :

    
    
       Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
    
       Coal – global average         100,000    (41% global electricity)
    
       Coal – China                  170,000   (75% China’s electricity)
    
       Coal – U.S.                    10,000    (32% U.S. electricity)
    
       Oil                            36,000    (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
    
       Natural Gas                     4,000    (22% global electricity)
    
       Biofuel/Biomass                24,000    (21% global energy)
    
       Solar (rooftop)                   440    (< 1% global electricity)
    
       Wind                              150    (2% global electricity)
    
       Hydro – global average          1,400    (16% global electricity)
    
       Hydro – U.S.                        5    (6% U.S. electricity)
    
       Nuclear – global average           90    (11%  global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
    
       Nuclear – U.S.                      0.1    (19% U.S. electricity)
    

Source:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-
deathprint-a-price-always-paid/)

~~~
kartan
"a project to control flooding and provide electrical power generation."

Damns are build to control flooding like the Banqiao Dam, to have reserves of
water and to generate energy.

If you are going to build a dam anyway, why do not use it to produce energy?

------
skybrian
This article is written entirely in terms of death counts. I guess that's a
good proxy for safety and makes nuclear power look good, but I don't think
it's an appropriate way measuring impact. Denial of use of property is pretty
important too. About 150,000 people had to evacuate after the Fukushima
disaster due to radiation concerns [1].

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-years-after-fukushima-by-
the...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-years-after-fukushima-by-the-
numbers-1.3480914)

~~~
adrianN
How many people will be displaced because of global warming?

~~~
elchief
up to 7 billion, depending on how warm you're talking

------
rurban
Says the nuclear industry, nobody else.

Just look at the independent safety reports on nuclear incidents, how often
another Three Mile Island, Tschnernobyl or Fukushima was barely avoided:
[http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/bechstein1/docs...](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/bechstein1/docs/kastchiev.pdf)

The nuclear risk is for generations.

------
8bitsrule
... and far and away the most expensive in the long run.

How much offshore windpower could Japan have created with the billions it has
_already_ spent cleaning up Fukushima (now estimated to become $200billion)?

How much will safe waste storage for tens of centuries cost? We can't know
until we figure out how to do that.

Right now, we don't have time to waste ... or money. There are clear, clean,
much less expensive alternatives. Ask the investors.

------
t0mbstone
How in the world is nuclear power more safe than friggin solar panels that
just sit there in the sun?

~~~
joefourier
The article does not address solar (and wind power) as they are not major
energy sources, but nuclear power is safer per TWh than solar if you take in
account deaths in manufacturing and installing photovoltaic panels (same goes
for wind power). You also have to add the energy require to produce the
panels, which itself most frequently comes from non-renewable and non-nuclear
sources, thereby contributing to pollution and causing more fatalities.

~~~
CardenB
This is likely true. However, to scale nuclear power development, we would
have to lower standards in some ways to meet more aggressive timelines, which
would almost certainly increase the mortality rate.

Nuclear can be the safest, but it's not the most efficient to build.

~~~
pitaj
> which would almost certainly increase the mortality rate

This is not at all certain. There are ways of loosening regulations while not
making them less safe. Even if there weren't, it is not guaranteed that having
less safe regulations would result in less safe nuclear plants. Even if the
nuclear plants were less safe[1], there is no guarantee that would result in
more incidents.

Edit [1]: meaning they operate under less stringent safety standards and
procedures, not a comment on the outcomes

------
macspoofing
Imagine if developed economies doubled down on nuclear in the 60s and 70s to
the same extent as France ... How many trillions of tons of CO2 would not have
been emitted to the atmosphere. I suspect the anti-nuke environmental movement
is not going to be seen in a friendly light by history.

~~~
arduanika
Too true. Clémenceau might say that the environment is too important to be
left to the environmentalists.

------
MR4D
This is the problem with popular statistics - these people don't understand
it.

As an analogy, let's say they come out with another article about weapons.
Perhaps they compare knives, guns, grenades, and nuclear weapons. By their
line of thinking, nuclear weapons are the safest because they have killed the
fewest number of people (roughly 1/4 million, depending on how you count it).

But I think everyone would agree that nuclear weapons are incredibly
dangerous. If for no other reason than the fact that they are the only weapon
that can create an extinction event.

Likewise, nuclear power is "safe" according to this article because it's
killed the fewest number of people.

It's this type of mentality that gets us into bad situations. Even the 2008
financial crisis was created by this lack of understanding of the potential
damage that certain (widely used) financial instruments could do.

If the authors want to be really honest, then answering their question (they
asked "If we want to produce energy with the lowest negative health impacts,
which source of energy should we choose?") would include potential issues as
well.

A simple example of this is "What would have happened if Fukushima's reactor
fell into the sea?" (please ignore the poor wording for simplification of the
issue.) The answer is not good. And if it didn't kill many people in a short
period of time, it sure as heck would have ruined a good part of the food
supply which would have affected many more people.

So when you are doing statistics, please consider how you frame the question,
because otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.

~~~
byproxy
Just finished reading "Chernobyl Prayer" and I have to say it really did make
me rethink my position on nuclear energy. Not that I'm an expert or have any
way of impacting the future of nuclear energy, or anything. But, as you say, a
nuclear disaster, while rare, would have immense and long-lasting effects. As
with any type of accident, it's always a question of "when" not "if".

------
pgreenwood
I am strongly in favour of the argument that nuclear power is cleaner, and
safer _per unit watt-hour_. However, what about nuclear weapons proliferation?

The popular light water reactor nuclear power stations use enriched uranium
fuel, and these processes can be used to make nuclear weapons. Now it's
certainly far from the truth all nations who have nuclear power will decide to
build nuclear weapons, but I would think that most nations would have the
potential of weapons at least partly in mind.

------
privateSFacct
Given all the deaths from oil including all the war and destruction in middle
east, plus enviro damage, plus health impacts, I always wondered why nuclear
is always considered the most polluting energy source.

One note, they focused on dominant sources of energy (95%) so most renewables
are not in the mix.

I've got to think for the cost of the US military (or some modest portion of
its budget) you could move the part pretty meaningfully towards an improved US
energy story (security / health etc).

------
oeuviz
Hate to point it out but _death_ is _not_ the main hazard of nuclear energy.

------
beders
A 1% failure rate is not safe. Stop reporting this absolute non-sense.

~~~
varjag
ITT: people who'd be first to tell you 99,9% SLA is crap argue that nuclear is
safe.

------
dna_polymerase
Look kids, that’s how not to do statistical analysis.

------
ohiovr
I don't recall hydroelectric plants leaving entire regions uninhabitable.

~~~
koube
Looks like there was an incident in 1976 that killed anywhere from 1800 to
25000 people:

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

~~~
bpchaps
That's kinda small compared to Banqiao Dam:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)

 _According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately
26,000 people died in the province from flooding and another 145,000 died
during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings
collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the
number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.
The death toll of this disaster was declassified in 2005._

~~~
ohiovr
At least there will be some normalcy within 10,000 years

------
vbuwivbiu
bollocks is it

~~~
varjag
Exactly.

We have two INES 7 incidents 25 years apart. Nuclear is 11% of world
electricity generation and is concentrated mostly in technologically developed
countries. Spreading that into developing world and to 100% of power
generation, we'd have a chernobyl at least every 2.5 years. And given the wars
and civil unrest, probably more.

~~~
shawnz
The figures in the article are already specified per watt-hour. So expanding
to 100% of power generation would not change the conclusion. Even if we had a
chernobyl every 2.5 years, that could still add up to a better safety rate
than other energy sources.

~~~
varjag
If vast fallout national parks are your thing, sure.

~~~
shawnz
I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. All energy sources
have dangers, but nuclear has the least danger in proportion to the amount of
energy it gives. A few large disasters are not inherently worse than many
small disasters. Just because nuclear disasters create a more dramatic scene
than other types of disasters, doesn't mean that the overall harm is greater.

~~~
varjag
"The least danger" is poorly qualified here. The article certainly does no
justice with straightforward, apples to apples comparison.

