The danger from climate change no longer outweighs risks of nuclear accidents
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
> 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...). 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). 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?
Workplace accidents happen on a human scale; that is, they are within the experience of people and in the small seem controllable and within human agency. Furthermore, although this is a somewhat callous perspective, it seems too obvious not to mention that workplace deaths do not impact the energy consumer. Very few people experience ethical qualms around wood use, despite forestry being a dangerous occupation.
Nuclear accidents, while rare, tend to be larger scale and take away people's agency. They are not in fact even fully comprehensible to most people. For better or worse people do not feel on a personal basis that they are able to control for the risk.
Overall people tend to be happier with higher risks where they feel they have agency (e.g. driving) over smaller risks which are completely out of their control (say, flying).
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.
For which there doesn't seem to be an expiration date.
Good thing I'm not doing that then! I'm sure what would give you that impression, since I do quite clearly say "Even if you take the higher estimates for the risk of nuclear (the ones that assume it hasn't got safer since Chernobyl)". But in case there's any confusion, whether or not you include Chernobyl doesn't change things that much. The two studies in that link give figures of 0.07 and 0.01 deaths/TWH for nuclear. In comparison, wind is 0.035. Coal is 25.
Same with turbines, plus the added effects on wildlife.
Not to mention in the article: No numbers are reviewed, no deaths per million KWh of energy produced. No balance of pros and cons and the mixture of energy sources needed to address a modern economy. No addressing storage or peak production demands.
I wonder who wrote the article:
> Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission... he is the founder of Wind Future LLC
So an ex-nuclear regulator who voted against nuclear is now a salesperson and profiteer for the wind industry.
And the article was published on a news site that implies they are 'saving our democracy from darkness'.
I feel this is such a blatant PR sub and obvious conflict of interest with no attempt at even feigning journalistic objectivity. If anything I'd say this article is less information about the perils of nuclear and instead is an example of the issues with revolving doors between regulators and the people they regulate and/or the competitors of the people they regulate plus a lack of journalistic ethics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko
Seriously though, while he does seem pretty contentious as a regulator he does have a PhD in particle physics and the record of his actions aligns with his stated position(s) in this article.
I agree the article is more human interest than reasoned argument but it is nonetheless good journalism (in my opinion...) because the story is good.
I also agree it is a missed opportunity because I expect with his credentials and experiences it would be really interesting to see him defend a more quantitative argument.
If you have a point, go ahead and make it. Hiding behind sarcasm is a bit weak intellectually and I believe is frowned upon on this site. There's a trend in society where people say sarcastic stuff to each other in an effort to put the other tribe down and 'show them' how silly they are. I believe this is deeply counter productive and extraordinarily silly. I invite you to resist such tribalistic urges.
Also, I never said 'big wind'. That was you injecting a strawman element so you can counter it with your sarcasm. Like the sarcasm, modifying what I said in order to attack it is also a very weak form of argumentation.
> he does have a PhD in particle physics
We have a different epistemic perspective. Very different. I guess you can say I don't like sophism.
> but it is nonetheless good journalism
I'll invite you to read the definition of journalism and try to objectively consider if this article fits it:
> Journalism is unbiased production and distribution of reports on current or past events based on facts and supported with proofs or evidences.
Meanwhile, the climate clock is ticking.
The select few that have controlled the world's energy supply for a century -- and have lied for so long and are so heavily invested in dying tech -- are getting desperate. The average nuclear plant generates 1GW. The world has added over 650GW of renewables so far ... over 60GW of wind in 2019 alone.
Their fearful threats are empty. Japan has been and will be in debt for many decades just to clean up one very-poorly-sited reactor. I wonder how many solar and wind plants they could have built with that money. And who can and has accounted for the cost to the world's environment? Coverup, coverup, coverup. Tragic.
This is the essence of the question; I don't see it's impossible, and if it's possible, then why nuclear? I agree that as society we grow our needs in power, but solar and wind sources are relatively easy to distribute, and it's rare when a lot of installations doesn't get light and wind, and distribution grid alone - without fossil fuel plants or nuclear power plants - can help. So the need in nuclear fission power is questionable.