Hacker News Reader

Comment by cunidev | Hacker News Reader

Isn't traditional nuclear power, while sustainable, also immensely dangerous?

Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation we have today when measured in deaths per unit of energy produced.

Nuclear kills 90 people per terawatt generated, rooftop solar kills 440 per terawatt. Hydro kills 1,400 and wind kills 150.

> Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation we have today when measured in deaths per unit of energy produced.

How does that compare to what we have deployed in the wild?

This isn't really predictive of the future though. So far we 've had very good luck that all the catastrophic failures of nuclear have resulted in minimal loss of life. A bad nuclear meltdown could kill thousands or worse. There is no path to solar or wind suddenly becoming exponentially more dangerous than it currently is.

You're right, it's not predictive of the future because modern reactors are much safer than 1970s designs and are even less likely to kill anyone.

Watt is not a unit of energy, but of power. Did you mean TWh? What are your sources?

> What are your sources?

Electricity generation and health

The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9591, 15–21 September 2007, Pages 979-990

The options are either kill a few people every day or MAYBE there is a black swan event and a bunch of people die.

Based on the history of nuclear power, I'd still choose nuclear.

Where does the immense danger come from?

Tail risks. Black swans if you wish. Unknown unknowns which leave the immediate area uninhabitable forever and a wide radius for generations.

If your alternative is fossil, you need to compare this to land lost due to rising sea levels, desertification etc.

absolutely... no good options. fusion maybe, if it finally works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com