Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI Prove Why Nuclear Power Will Never Be Inherently Safe

https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/nuclear-power-will-never-be-inherently-safe

by mimixco • 7 years ago

17 48 7 years ago

ziddoap4• 7 years ago

Given all of the data presented here is true, does this change the current conclusion that there are less deaths per TWh for nuclear? Or would the inclusion of the increased cancer rates tip the scales?

mimixco3• 7 years ago

This issue is highly contentious, perhaps nowhere more than on HN. The many nuclear advocates here believe that few people die from nuclear. The anti-nuke crowd disagrees.

ziddoap4• 7 years ago

Well, I've gathered that much.

But, just earlier today was a fancy chart comparing deaths/TWh of each energy source, which I believe used the numbers this particular article is refuting. I was wondering if anyone had a similar chart/data, except using the numbers presented in this particular article.

Opinions are great and all, but there's actual numbers to use which is what I am more interested in.

dsfyu404ed3• 7 years ago

Everyone agrees that few people die. The anti-nuke crowd just doesn't agree that this is indicative of the safety of nuclear power.

crispyambulance2• 7 years ago

    > ...  deaths per TWh ...

The thing is we have not yet seen "worst case scenario" for a nuclear power accident. As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible.

We don't know what the actual death/TWh is for nuclear is yet because there hasn't been "enough" TWh's.

ziddoap4• 7 years ago

That logic can extend to literally any scenario with data. There is never "enough data", especially regarding edge cases or "worst case scenarios".

Luckily, we can use the data we have and come up with some intermediate conclusions while more data is collected - rather than sweep it under the rug.

yongjik2• 7 years ago

For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the worst case scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...)

It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."

opo3• 7 years ago

..As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible.

Chernobyl would have been illegal to build anywhere else in the world since it was such an inherently dangerous design. It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else. At any rate, when you say "As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible." - you need to back that up with something. We've had hundreds of reactors producing hundreds of TWh of electricity per year for decades with less loss of life than any other power source.

new_guy• 7 years ago

People never mention the Kyshtym Disaster ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster - this barely scratches the surface)

Arguably that was the worst accident in history, hundreds of square miles are still contaminated and off-limits. It was so bad the CIA helped keep it secret from the Americans so as not to discourage their nuclear industry.

SketchySeaBeast• 7 years ago

If the neighbour's idiot kid poked his eye out with a spoon, I wouldn't tell my kid about it either, I'd just have him eat soup properly.

intertextuality5• 7 years ago

How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility meltdown? ...? It's measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious recorded event.

I've known about chernobyl, tmi, fukushima, etc, but I was totally surprised to read about this one.

dmschulman• 7 years ago

No one is claiming nuclear is "inherently safe" (except for the author of the Forbes opinion piece the article dissects). It is the safest form of energy relative to its impact on the planet when compared to other methods of generating power.

partiallypro• 7 years ago

Nothing is inherently safe. Nuclear power is our best hope for clean energy and cleaning up the environment. Wind, solar and hydro can fill the gaps...but without nuclear we'll never have a true clean solution.

negzero7• 7 years ago

These are all old reactor designs with obvious flaws; moving to near-future Gen IV designs are significantly safer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantag...

citilife2• 7 years ago

It should be:

"Why <insert power generation> Will Never Be Inherently Safe"

All power generating has some risk. The idea is to create a differential and capture the differential. Inherently, generating power means capturing energy differentials and typically the higher the TWh the more damage when a failure to contain said energy creation occurs (think a nuclear plant, dam, wind turbine, etc.)

Safety in nuclear power, as with other forms of energy generation, have more to do with politics. Politics will lead to cutting or increasing costs and safety guards being put (or not put) in place. Arguably, pollution due to coal and natural gas is going to cause global warming and in turn many billions will possibly die from starvation.

Is that "inherently safe?"

I don't think anyone disagrees that it will never be "inherently" safe, but it may be "safer" or "cause less damage" long term to the general populous than alternatives today.

toomuchtodo5• 7 years ago

I will eat a hat in front of everyone on HN at a pub if a utility scale solar plant backed by utility scale lithium battery storage ever melts down, requiring billions of dollars of remediation and making the surrounding land uninhabitable for centuries.

As you said, safety is politics, and politics are people. People will be greedy, they will cut corners, and without a rigid command structure and severe penalties for safety violations (ie the US Navy and their nuclear fleet), accidents will eventually occur. Solar is cheap to manufacture, easy to ship, and does not require skilled labor to rack and install (besides trained electricians for the interconnections).

As of a few minutes ago, California is generating 10GW of solar energy, 1.8GW of wind, and only 2.1GW of nuclear [1] [2].

[1] https://i.imgur.com/FHm1Ppw.png

[2] https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=...

Aloha3• 7 years ago

Lithium batteries are at best a bridge technology - meaning something good enough to get us until the next thing comes.

The issues with Lithium batteries is, a finite lifetime, a shortage of the materials needed to make them, toxic byproducts of manufacture and recycling or disposing of the the batteries when their finite life is used up.

citilife2• 7 years ago

The problem are many places solar is less effective, for instance the northern mostly cloud covered states.

Also, places such as Illinois have used primarily nuclear for power for decades without any incidents:

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IL#tabs-4

Aloha3• 7 years ago

Nuclear: Potential Wastelands, storage of waste

Solar: Bird Deaths, toxic to make PV panels

Wind: Potential Bird Deaths, fails violently when it does

Hydro: Dam Failure, incompatible with a healthy fishery

Fossil: Pollution of various forms, finite amount of fuel

I'd still prefer nuclear power, given the options.

intertextuality5• 7 years ago

Your list is totally disingenuous. Are you actually comparing the environmental issues associated with creating a solar panel, to a nuclear facility melting down and making the entire surrounding area uninhabitable and unusable for centuries? Not to mention causing a huge uptick in cancer in the the surrounding areas as well?

I think nuclear is our only real option moving forward (due to wildly increasing energy consumption) but we need to look at these things honestly. Any damage caused by solar or hydro is wildly incomparable to more nuclear meltdowns or current fossil fuel emissions.

dsfyu404ed3• 7 years ago

Large scale power generation is inherently unsafe. Making all those electrons jiggle is going to require some serious stored energy and wherever there's stored energy there's potential to release it all faster than intended.

yongjik2• 7 years ago

If the article's bias isn't clear enough from the title, this should:

Before we delve into the article itself, note that the author of the [pro-nuclear] article, Michael Shellenberger, has a degree in cultural anthropology, not nuclear science or nuclear engineering, environmental science, or any other educational background related to the energy production methods and their impact on the environment, human lives, or the global economy.

And then,

First, this puff piece for Forbes Magazine tries to discredit the assessment of noted pediatrician and children’s advocate Dr. Helen Caldicott, who projected close to 1 million people died due to the Chernobyl meltdown.

So who is this Dr. Helen Caldicott? From Wikipedia:

Helen Mary Caldicott (born 7 August 1938) is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, and military action in general.

So they decry an anthropologist writing a pro-nuclear column (fair enough) ... by quoting a physician (umm really?).

By the way, even if we accept their "one million deaths from Chernobyl" at face value, let's put that in some context:

A 2013 study by MIT indicates that 53,000 early deaths occur per year in the United States alone because of vehicle emissions. [1]

So, during the 33 years since Chernobyl, vehicular emissions caused somewhere around 53k * 33 = 1.7 million deaths in the US only. Nuclear killed, let's be generous, up to a million. Coal kills that much every year.

Well, maybe nuclear is too expensive. I'm OK with that argument. But I don't buy that nuclear is too dangerous, when its worst disasters kill less than regular, non-accidental use of fossil fuels on the same year.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

chungleong• 7 years ago

I just noticed that the head of the New York of Sciences studied English lit at UC Berkeley.

keanzu5• 7 years ago

"maybe nuclear is too expensive" I think this is the key flaw that is nuclear power's undoing. Even the Chinese government, who are apparently pro-nuclear, have not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016. They are finding that other forms of generation are cost competitive as the necessary safety features drive the nuclear price up. If the Chinese dictatorship is struggling to justify new plants on a cost basis then it doesn't look good for the rest of the world.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...

mimixco3• 7 years ago

Arnie Gunderson, the author, is a recognized nuclear expert with a flawless resume who has since become a whistleblower. His credentials on this subject are beyond reproach.

tehsauce• 7 years ago

This article contains almost a dozen character attacks on the forbes author- basically every time he is mentioned. Both authors seem to be far off from the number of deaths and cancer rates estimated by the World Health Organization.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounde...

If you're going to claim that the entire nuclear industry is evil, and that it's technology is fundamentally dangerous, maybe it would be good to compare it to a competitor like fossil fuels. Their pollution can cause over a million deaths per year.

https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/

Comparing the two by casualties per unit of power generated, this makes nuclear power appear something like 100 times safer. It's a simple calculation and if anyone's interested I could add the numbers here.

Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI Prove Why Nuclear Power Will Never Be Inherently Safe

Related Stories