Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 679 posts

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#31

Post by nabla9 »

cjsuk wrote: post #14

Apart from the waste. We really don't know what to do about it other than bury it and leave it for a few tens to hundreds of generations in the future to deal with with the hope that they will know what to do. So it's the safest option. But only for now. We might just be dooming our descendants to deal with the mess and they might be in a worse state than we are now.

Even if the waste starts to leak, it will be just local problem and not big catastrophe. Compared to global warming, burying nuclear waste is more responsible solution for the future generations sake.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#32

Post by simias »

c3534l wrote: post #16
cjsuk wrote: post #14

Apart from the waste. We really don't know what to do about it other than bury it and leave it for a few tens to hundreds of generations in the future to deal with with the hope that they will know what to do. So it's the safest option. But only for now. We might just be dooming our descendants to deal with the mess and they might be in a worse state than we are now.

We found it in the ground, we're just putting it back in the ground when we're done with it.

Not in the same state and not in the same concentration. I'm not anti-nuclear in the least but let's not spread disinformation (or "fake news" in modern parlance).

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#33

Post by Footkerchief »

xg15 wrote: post #12

Can anyone explain to me why "deaths/tWh" is even a meaningful measure? Of course nuclear energy has one of the highest Wh outputs, no-one is disputing that. However, what does that have to do with the risk of use? That seems like a measure very skewed to make arguments in favour of nuclear power. I might as well argue that car drivers are safer than pedestrians because the average deaths/horse power is vastly lower.…

How is it skewed? It's a cost-benefit analysis. tWh is the benefit, deaths are the safety cost. In other words, if your country needs X amount of power, and you know the deaths/tWh for each energy source, then you can figure out how many people would die if your country used that energy source to produce its power.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#34

Post by dirtyaura »

xg15 wrote: post #12

Can anyone explain to me why "deaths/tWh" is even a meaningful measure? Of course nuclear energy has one of the highest Wh outputs, no-one is disputing that. However, what does that have to do with the risk of use? That seems like a measure very skewed to make arguments in favour of nuclear power. I might as well argue that car drivers are safer than pedestrians because the average deaths/horse power is vastly lower.…

Wikipedia has some numbers. Hydro has caused the largest single-event catastrophe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#35

Post by kaikai »

nabla9 wrote: post #31
cjsuk wrote: post #14

Apart from the waste. We really don't know what to do about it other than bury it and leave it for a few tens to hundreds of generations in the future to deal with with the hope that they will know what to do. So it's the safest option. But only for now. We might just be dooming our descendants to deal with the mess and they might be in a worse state than we are now.

Even if the waste starts to leak, it will be just local problem and not big catastrophe. Compared to global warming, burying nuclear waste is more responsible solution for the future generations sake.

Nuclear waste leaking into an aquifer or the ocean will not be a local problem.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#36

Post by dubcanada »

anorphirith wrote: post #8

the only problem is where to get the uranium, I believe russia gets it from kazakhstan. france from niger. does US buys it from kazakhstan as well ?

Austrilia is #1 by reserves, Kazakhstan is #2 and Canada is #3.

US as of 2012 buys about 25% of it from Canada and the rest from a variety of places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#37

Post by pavel_lishin »

xg15 wrote: post #12

Can anyone explain to me why "deaths/tWh" is even a meaningful measure? Of course nuclear energy has one of the highest Wh outputs, no-one is disputing that. However, what does that have to do with the risk of use? That seems like a measure very skewed to make arguments in favour of nuclear power. I might as well argue that car drivers are safer than pedestrians because the average deaths/horse power is vastly lower.…

I'm only aware of two deaths specifically caused by wind power, when two engineers were caught on top of one when it caught fire. It's likely such a negligible number that it wouldn't even show up on the graph.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#39

Post by andrewprock »

DangerousPie wrote: post #26
xg15 wrote: post #12

Can anyone explain to me why "deaths/tWh" is even a meaningful measure? Of course nuclear energy has one of the highest Wh outputs, no-one is disputing that. However, what does that have to do with the risk of use? That seems like a measure very skewed to make arguments in favour of nuclear power. I might as well argue that car drivers are safer than pedestrians because the average deaths/horse power is vastly lower.…

Why do you think it's not meaningful? What would be the alternative?

Deaths per capita within 100 miles of generation.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#40

Post by swerner »

gaius wrote: post #20
cjsuk wrote: post #14

Apart from the waste. We really don't know what to do about it other than bury it and leave it for a few tens to hundreds of generations in the future to deal with with the hope that they will know what to do. So it's the safest option. But only for now. We might just be dooming our descendants to deal with the mess and they might be in a worse state than we are now.

We really don't know what to do about it Another myth. Of course we do: breeder reactors. Hint: why is nuclear waste dangerous? because there is still loads of energy in it .

And then we put the breeder reactors into abandoned mines.

Breeders aren't the solution, they have waste products too, and those waste products are also radioactive.

Post reply on HN