You can say that but I remember Fukushima. The damage causes by the Fukushima meltdown cost more than the power company’s total profits in Japan over the previous 40 years.
So keep telling me that nuclear is safe, and I’ll keep pointing to the damage it is guaranteed to cause. Low risk high consequence situations are the hardest to regulate. And you’re risking your entire city, all at once, everything in it.
But look, the real question is what new sources to build. Current sources will stay online for years or decades. For new production, the cheapest by far is solar, followed by wind, as long as the externalities are dumped back on the utilities. Also, home solar means the utilities can’t price gouge you.
You can say that but I remember Fukushima. The damage causes by the Fukushima meltdown cost more than the power company’s total profits in Japan over the previous 40 years.
And it’s a mistake that will never happen again, as this accident immediately triggered a ton of retrofitting across the nuclear reactors in use specifically to cover the eventuality that Fukushima showed us.
Now compare Fukushima to the ongoing effects of fossil fuel plants, and the deaths caused. What do you think caused more deaths, Fukushima, or stopping all nuclear plants in the country? This paper argues that the shutdown caused an increase in mortality (people freezing to death over winter due to up to 40% higher energy costs) ultimately killing more people than radiation exposure (emphasis mine):
To put these estimates in context, we calculate that the higher electricity prices resulted in
at least an additional 1,280 deaths during 2011-2014. Since our data only covers the 21 largest
cities in Japan, which represents 28 percent of the total population, the total effects for the entire
nation are even larger. Meanwhile, the number of deaths due to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
accident is much lower. No deaths have yet to be directly attributable to radiation exposure,
though projections estimate a cumulative 130 deaths (Ten Hoeve and Jacobson 2012). An
estimated 1,232 deaths occurred as a result of the evacuation after the accident.7 Therefore, the
deaths from the higher electricity prices likely outnumber the deaths from the accident in only four years if we extrapolate our estimates to the entire country, and almost certainly outnumber
the deaths over a longer time period given that the higher electricity prices persisted beyond the
end of our study. This suggests that ceasing nuclear energy production has contributed to more
deaths than the accident itself.
So keep telling me that nuclear is safe, and I’ll keep pointing to the damage it is guaranteed to cause.
Nuclear power is the safest form of energy per TWH. Tell me again how much you care about guaranteed damage caused by an energy source. Nuclear may have a large local impact, but that’s not remotely comparable to the global environmental impact that fossil fuels have, both in premature deaths and impact on the climate. Shutting down nuclear before you have a non-fossil fuel base load source in the name of safety is spending dollars to get pennies.
And you’re risking your entire city, all at once, everything in it.
Out of over 660 plants over 60 years, there’s been 3 ‘major’ accidents, of which only one of them was even close to what you’re describing. Fukishima has close to a quarter million people living there today. Heck, even the small town of londonberry township (3 mile island) has almost 5000 people in it.
The cost was because people like you dont understand low dose exposure and stick to the LNT model for radiation exposure. So they literly dug out the ground and removed all traces of radation. On paper that sounds great till you realize that nothing is radiation free and this was essentially a massive theatrical production of mopping the rain.
Just to be clear, I’m not claiming that nuclear is not problematic. It is. But the lasting damage from ultra rare major disasters is like a decade of topsoil contamination.
You can compare nuclear to hydro and coal, because those are the similar sources that can produce base load electricity. In that group, nuclear is by far the least problematic.
You can say that but I remember Fukushima. The damage causes by the Fukushima meltdown cost more than the power company’s total profits in Japan over the previous 40 years.
So keep telling me that nuclear is safe, and I’ll keep pointing to the damage it is guaranteed to cause. Low risk high consequence situations are the hardest to regulate. And you’re risking your entire city, all at once, everything in it.
But look, the real question is what new sources to build. Current sources will stay online for years or decades. For new production, the cheapest by far is solar, followed by wind, as long as the externalities are dumped back on the utilities. Also, home solar means the utilities can’t price gouge you.
People never hesitate to show that feels > reals
And it’s a mistake that will never happen again, as this accident immediately triggered a ton of retrofitting across the nuclear reactors in use specifically to cover the eventuality that Fukushima showed us.
Now compare Fukushima to the ongoing effects of fossil fuel plants, and the deaths caused. What do you think caused more deaths, Fukushima, or stopping all nuclear plants in the country? This paper argues that the shutdown caused an increase in mortality (people freezing to death over winter due to up to 40% higher energy costs) ultimately killing more people than radiation exposure (emphasis mine):
Nuclear power is the safest form of energy per TWH. Tell me again how much you care about guaranteed damage caused by an energy source. Nuclear may have a large local impact, but that’s not remotely comparable to the global environmental impact that fossil fuels have, both in premature deaths and impact on the climate. Shutting down nuclear before you have a non-fossil fuel base load source in the name of safety is spending dollars to get pennies.
Out of over 660 plants over 60 years, there’s been 3 ‘major’ accidents, of which only one of them was even close to what you’re describing. Fukishima has close to a quarter million people living there today. Heck, even the small town of londonberry township (3 mile island) has almost 5000 people in it.
Your argument is based in hysterics, not reality.
The cost was because people like you dont understand low dose exposure and stick to the LNT model for radiation exposure. So they literly dug out the ground and removed all traces of radation. On paper that sounds great till you realize that nothing is radiation free and this was essentially a massive theatrical production of mopping the rain.
There’s been what, three disasters total similar to the one in Fukushima? And remind me, how many people died from that one? Was it one guy?
it isnt about the total DC its about lasting damage in the affected people and environment
Just to be clear, I’m not claiming that nuclear is not problematic. It is. But the lasting damage from ultra rare major disasters is like a decade of topsoil contamination.
You can compare nuclear to hydro and coal, because those are the similar sources that can produce base load electricity. In that group, nuclear is by far the least problematic.
Are you suggesting that Fukushima did more lasting damage to the environment than the fossil fuel industry…?