logoalt Hacker News

fireanttoday at 4:39 AM3 repliesview on HN

> Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions

I also used to believe that but now I'm not so sure. Nuclear carries massive and unpredictable risks on failure. We can fairly well predict what will happen on catastrophic wind turbine failure, but with nuclear it is much more difficult. And what is arguably worse is that nuclear catastrophic failures are very infrequent and so we have very hard time estimating and thinking about probabilities of them happening.

Personally I think that keeping existing reactors running is better than the alternatives, but I'm not so sure about building up new reactors compared to building more predictable green energy sources.


Replies

leonidasruptoday at 6:02 AM

Burning coal in coal power plants causes more deaths each year in Europe than the total deaths caused by Chernobyl accident (4000-8000).

"The health burden of European CPP emission-induced PM2.5, estimated with the Global Exposure Mortality Model, amounts to at least 16 800 (CI95 14 800–18 700) excess deaths per year over the European domain"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349938542_Disease_b...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812...

But only nuclear accidents get the media attention, because they are big and infreqeunt. Similar to deaths caused by aircraft crashes vs deaths caused by car crashes.

show 1 reply
Cwizardtoday at 8:00 AM

Serious question, when has there been a serious nuclear accident? Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster that killed far more people than the nuclear failure did. Chernobyl was pure communist stupidity. This level of incompetence would never happen in a well functioning country. So that leaves Three Mile island?

Meanwhile coal kills millions each year (mostly the old and children).

And what are these predictable green alternatives? Only hydro is reliable and is heavily restricted by geo. We’d need massive breakthroughs in battery technology to make solar and wind reliable in most of the world (by population).

Look up historical weather patterns days with no sun and no wind, you need massive, massive amounts of energy storage.

show 1 reply
idiotsecanttoday at 5:54 AM

Renewable generation is not the hard part. Renewable transmission and storage is the hard part. Its so hard, in fact, that building very expensive nuke is still much cheaper and more attainable.

show 1 reply