
The danger from climate change no longer outweighs risks of nuclear accidents - nl
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
======
sweeneyrod
This position is not justifiable, and the author must surely know that based
on his experience and the lack of any quantitative comparison. In other words,
he's lying and his lies will kill people if we listen to him.

> Coal and natural gas do not create this kind of acute accident hazard,
> though they do present a different kind of danger.

Around 1000-2000 people died in Japan as a result of Fukushima. Around
5000-10,000 people died in Germany in the following decade because Fukushima
scared them into switching back to coal ([https://www.wired.com/story/germany-
rejected-nuclear-poweran...](https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-
nuclear-powerand-deadly-emissions-spiked/)). It's absurd to imply that coal
and nuclear are remotely similar in level of direct danger; it's like (as in,
the relative risk is similar to) writing a thinkpiece describing flu and
Russian roulette as "both dangerous things". And that's ignoring climate
change.

> And solar, wind and geothermal energy pose no safety threat at all.

This is just untrue. Solar and wind quite arguably kill more people than
nuclear ([https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy)). Even if you
take the higher estimates for the risk of nuclear (the ones that assume it
hasn't got safer since Chernobyl), they're certainly not different enough that
you can claim renewables post "no safety threat at all" in an article about
how spooky nuclear is.

And not really the same thing, but:

> without producing a single electron of power

This guy does have have a physics PhD right? He must know that you don't
measure electricity in electrons, surely?

~~~
vanusa
First off, you're definitely cherry picking -- or to put it more bluntly, and
to use your own measuring stick: "lying" \-- if you try to sum up fatality
risks of nuclear by referring only Fukushima, and including (in that part of
your post) any mention of Chernobyl.

For which, using the same website you used (ourworlindata.org -- I'll let you
find the link) we have estimates of up to 60,000 worldwide fatalities due to
the radiation release from that incident.

Seconds - when the author brought up "acute risk" he was referring to the 30
km exclusion zone and forced evacuation of 150,000 people (after Fukushima).

In other words - you're accusing the author of making unbalanced comparison
(and not only that, basically calling him out as a fraud and/or idiot for
doing so). But apparently not even attempting to make a balanced comparison
yourself.

~~~
jjeaff
I assume they left Chernobyl out because it was due to out of date technology
that is no longer in use today and essentially cannot happen with the way
nuclear power plants work today.

~~~
vanusa
Another way of looking at disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima is not so
much as failures of technology -- but of bad _policy_ , and it's
generalization: hubris.

For which there doesn't seem to be an expiration date.

------
melling
Aren’t Generation 3 reactors with passive cooling much safer than previous
generations?

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

~~~
pfalafel
Aren't wind and solar farms a much safer and cheaper source of energy these
days?

~~~
xupybd
Not when you have to fire coal and gas plants to cover peak demand. Then pay
your neighbours to take your oversupply during peak generation.

~~~
mikelyons
Meaning we need batteries?

~~~
Mrdarknezz
Batteries are not feasible economically or capacity wise.

~~~
avmich
Today or in principle?

~~~
xupybd
Today. Its just a technology problem. If batteries get developed that are up
to the task it changes the equation completely. I honestly think that will
take a few decades minimum.

