It has the least amount of deaths of ANY energy source we have per amount of power generated. That is if we assume the maximum amount of deaths from the nuclear accidents etc., if we assume more reasonable numbers there is no debate at all. And that comes on top of the extremely low CO2 emissions.
I always wondered if it wasn’t the Kremlin who pushed those anti nuclear agendas (I grew up in Sweden and eventually the “greens” wanted to dismantle nit only the nuclear power plants but also the army). They are never based in facts, only fear, and they helped Russia a lot with not only gas&oil exports but a lot of soft power coming with them.
It is the opposite. Nuclear shills don’t base their opinion on facts, they would rather hope for a miracle solution that is, when viewed rationally, complete nonsense. Apart from the extremely toxic waste for which we have not found geological structures stable enough to prevent it from leaking, building nuclear power plants is a really CO2-intensive process, especially with regard to all the concrete involved. The most pressing issue, however, is the fuel. What do you think nuclear reactors generate power with? Lots of air and goodwill? Entire regions have to be dug up for Uranium, of which useful isotopes then have to be enriched before they can be used economically in reactors. Furthermore, uranium is even less abundant in the Earth than oil and natural gas. If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil. So we’re just substituting one problem for another with nuclear energy. It isn’t sustainable and renewable because at some point shortly after adoption, the fuel would run out.
What a trainwreck your post is, you’re saying CO2 costs for building a nuclear plant outweighs the CO2 fossil fuels would generate for the same amount if energy created, it’s like thinking you can bicycle to the moon.
But a couple of hundred thousand displaced people don’t count, of course. Also, there are no reliable statistics on fatalities because these are being systematically suppressed. I wonder why that is?
Well you’re the one claiming that this data has been suppressed.
We do have the data showing spikes in cancer after Chernobyl and data showing on-job deaths for pretty much every type of power plant. And that data shows that nuclear is the second safest energy per MWh generated, by far. With, apparently, solar being the first and wind at the third position. It’s not suppressed, it’s there and it’s pretty conclusive.
Since the 1990s—when the declassification of selected liquidator records prompted some direct participants to speak publicly—some with direct involvement in the liquidators’ cleanup efforts have asserted that several thousand liquidators died as a result of the cleanup.[23] Other organizations claim that total liquidator deaths as a result of the cleanup operation may number at least 6,000.
That’s a case specific to Chernobyl and Soviet Russia in general. We know they falsified a lot of data in many aspects, but that’s not “systemically suppressed” and definitely not something to generalise to every single nuclear power plant currently running in the world.
Thats total and utter bs. The cost of nuclear is insanely high, especially for storing. On top comes the “not in my backyard” situation which makes the most vulnerable people be the ones most affected. We are seeing days on 100% renewables. Its not that hard to understand.
What is BS? I never said anything about monetary cost. CO2 will cost SO absurdly much more than anything nuclear combined, I find it hard to care about it.
Pushing nuclear is bs. The nuclear lobby wants to make it look like there is only coal or nuclear. Reality is renewables are the only solution. Dont believe shit like this.
You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.
It has the least amount of deaths of ANY energy source we have per amount of power generated. That is if we assume the maximum amount of deaths from the nuclear accidents etc., if we assume more reasonable numbers there is no debate at all. And that comes on top of the extremely low CO2 emissions.
I always wondered if it wasn’t the Kremlin who pushed those anti nuclear agendas (I grew up in Sweden and eventually the “greens” wanted to dismantle nit only the nuclear power plants but also the army). They are never based in facts, only fear, and they helped Russia a lot with not only gas&oil exports but a lot of soft power coming with them.
/Thank you for coming to my conspiracy talk!
It is the opposite. Nuclear shills don’t base their opinion on facts, they would rather hope for a miracle solution that is, when viewed rationally, complete nonsense. Apart from the extremely toxic waste for which we have not found geological structures stable enough to prevent it from leaking, building nuclear power plants is a really CO2-intensive process, especially with regard to all the concrete involved. The most pressing issue, however, is the fuel. What do you think nuclear reactors generate power with? Lots of air and goodwill? Entire regions have to be dug up for Uranium, of which useful isotopes then have to be enriched before they can be used economically in reactors. Furthermore, uranium is even less abundant in the Earth than oil and natural gas. If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil. So we’re just substituting one problem for another with nuclear energy. It isn’t sustainable and renewable because at some point shortly after adoption, the fuel would run out.
Tell me you don’t understand the energy density of nuclear fuel without telling me…
We also have centuries worth of uranium if it’s used for power generation, even if it was the main fuel.
Lol found the gas&oil shill!
What a trainwreck your post is, you’re saying CO2 costs for building a nuclear plant outweighs the CO2 fossil fuels would generate for the same amount if energy created, it’s like thinking you can bicycle to the moon.
But a couple of hundred thousand displaced people don’t count, of course. Also, there are no reliable statistics on fatalities because these are being systematically suppressed. I wonder why that is?
"There is no data to support my ideas, that’s definitely because everyone in the world is hiding and suppressing them "
Well, where are the data? Isn’t that a question that would be very much in the public interest to know about?
Well you’re the one claiming that this data has been suppressed.
We do have the data showing spikes in cancer after Chernobyl and data showing on-job deaths for pretty much every type of power plant. And that data shows that nuclear is the second safest energy per MWh generated, by far. With, apparently, solar being the first and wind at the third position. It’s not suppressed, it’s there and it’s pretty conclusive.
https://blog.ucs.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
From Wikipedia
That’s a case specific to Chernobyl and Soviet Russia in general. We know they falsified a lot of data in many aspects, but that’s not “systemically suppressed” and definitely not something to generalise to every single nuclear power plant currently running in the world.
deleted by creator
Thats total and utter bs. The cost of nuclear is insanely high, especially for storing. On top comes the “not in my backyard” situation which makes the most vulnerable people be the ones most affected. We are seeing days on 100% renewables. Its not that hard to understand.
What is BS? I never said anything about monetary cost. CO2 will cost SO absurdly much more than anything nuclear combined, I find it hard to care about it.
Pushing nuclear is bs. The nuclear lobby wants to make it look like there is only coal or nuclear. Reality is renewables are the only solution. Dont believe shit like this.
You’re saying nuclear power is responsible for less deaths and sicknesses than for example… wind?
Yes. Wind turbines maintenance is a dangerous job that sometimes results in injury or death. Nuclear power is safer, per kWh.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
It’s not, a person has already provided a study proving you wrong.
Edit: You’ve changed your comment completely with that edit.
I provided a source, you said “it’s not”. Forgive me if I ignore your comment unless you also provide a source.
You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.
It’s only doing slights better than wind.
Right so why shouldn’t we just use power sources where we don’t have an issue with massively toxic waste products later on in the process?
Edit: And which are also a lot cheaper.
Because of reliability and lack of storage options.
Pumped hydroelectric storage exists and is easily achieved. What about the storage options for nuclear waste?
Only if you have a mountain nearby, which not all places have.
We have those.
Not really, you can build hydroelectric storage facilities.
The nuclear storage facilities here in Germany are already being shut down because they’re in danger of leaking into the groundwater.
Sure you can, but they don’t work very well without elevation…
Yes, Germany is quite bad at managing theirs, but that’s more of a political problem than a technical one.
Haven’t you heard of all the people that get killed by feral solar panels every year?