"Nuclear power is a potential safety threat, *if* something goes wrong. Coal-fired power is *guaranteed* destruction, filling the atmosphere with planet-heating carbon when it operates the way it's supposed to". (Bill McKibben)

Same for fossil gas, by the way.

@kravietz Nuclear power is guaranteed destruction as well… Creating nuclear waste lasting for centuries and other than CO2, we don't even have a remote idea on how to get rid of it.

And no, hiding it in the ground is not a great answer as all temporary depots have shown.

I think we have to come up with better solutions there.

@sheogorath @kravietz What nonsense. Long-living nuclear waste is only created in the countries that don't have the full cycle nuclear energy. Spent fuel can be reprocessed and the remainder is a bunch of short-lived isotopes. This cycle also uses fuel many times more efficiently. It's only a choice made by the governments.

@pro @kravietz Do you have an example for a country which runs a "full cycle" for nuclear power?

@sheogorath @kravietz France does full cycle. USSR had the technology and utilized it, but they were notoriously environmentally irresponsible in general, so they still produced long-lived waste.

@pro @kravietz So, I just spend some time reading about full cycle nuclear power strategy and the first thing that sticks out is: Even for the "little" amount of nuclear waste that France produces, it has no final destination.

And another point I came across, due to the "statistics being an asshole the risk of an incident increases drastically with every new power plant, The incidents of Fukushima and Chernobyl were no exceptions, they were statically "expectable".


@sheogorath @kravietz Oh puleeeeze. Coal, wind, and solar kill way more people than nuclear. It's laughable.

@pro @kravietz I don't know of any coal, wind or solar energy incident, that made it impossible for humans to live in an area as big as Chernobyl.

I mean if you want to live with the risk, fine, go ahead. But please somewhere not even remotely close to me? like further away than Chernobyl, because we still had their nuclear cloud over here and are still recommended to not collect mushrooms in the forest, due to this nonsense.


Sorry but what you say is completely irrational.

Chernobyl disaster killed ~200 people over 20 years period.

This is the Pripyat exclusion zone today:



There are tourist excursions organised there from Kyiv and I'm actually planning to go there with kids in May.



At the same time coal is causing early death of thousands of people across the whole Europe, including Germany and Poland.

Yet, you're afraid of Chernobyl, and not afraid of coal.

This irrationality is 100% based on propaganda being spread by Greens and has nothing to do with reality.



You correctly noted that you "don't know". This is unfortunately part of the extremely biased disinformation package provided by Greens.

1975 - Banqiao dam distaster in China killed *230'000* people

Some died of impact and drowning, some of famine and diseases caused by contamination of the land.


@sheogorath @pro

Solar panels are catching fire as result of overheating or short circuits. Workers in solar and wind industry die as result of electrocution or fall from large heights.

But nobody talks about it because "solar and wind are nice and clean"! If a single worker breaks his ankle in a nuclear plant all world is suddenly concerned about their safety...

@sheogorath @pro Here are some case studies of fatal accidents in solar industry cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DE

And obviously, we should not panic around that because *every* human activity can potentially result in harm and death. Keeping them safe is a task for healt & safety. The problem is that accidents in nuclear industry are singled out and presented as something immensely dangerous and deadly, when they are not.

@kravietz @pro I think the major difference is 1st party impact vs 3rd party impact.

The number of people that are at least subject of a nuclear incident is by a magnitude of hundred thousands when not millions higher than the number of even hundreds of solar or wind industry incidents.


And we can safely expect another incident within the next 15-20 years.

@sheogorath @pro

No, we cannot. Because accidents happened to old reactors built and operated in risky locations, and the industry has learned from it.

Nothing that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima can ever happen in any reactor operated in France, UK or Germany, because they were built specifically to be safe.

Note that even Russia, with its long tradition of negligence, had no nuclear power safety accidents since Chernobyl.

@kravietz @pro Well, according to the ASN the scenario like Fukushima is still not impossible. Even when the protects where improved a lot.

An example for this is the 1999 incident: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blayais_

The current ASM report from 2018 talks a lot about improvements that were done after Fukushima, which shows that there is still room for improvement.

By the way, the point of the statistic is not that an incident will happen the same way as in Fukushima, but with a similar impact.


The point is that nobody is building reactors such as in Fukushima and in such places.

The problem is that Japan had not much other choice back when they built it - they were cut from resources, and took the risk. The risk has materialized eventually, but that was their bet.


@sheogorath @pro

> than the number of even hundreds of solar or wind industry incidents

But not hydro incidents, right?

In a few recent years there were further dam failures in Brazil and in Russia.

They killed ~200 people.

Have you ever heard about them?

@kravietz @pro True, those can happen, and they do happen, but considering the environmental impact and the regulations that those project have regarding cleanness of water in Europe mean even the worst incident won't cause a wasteland. Like with a Tsunami people will die, people will flee but as soon as it's over they will come back and start living there. That not so much the case directly around Chernobyl or Fukushima even after decontamination.


It's not true - a flood in the first place fills up sewers, water treatment plants, farms etc so the sediment after a flood is essentially a mix of human and animal crap, animal corpses, dead fish etc. You can't just "come back and start living", houses need to be cleaned, sterilized, repainted and in some cases demolished and rebuilt. Cars can be only scrapped as they smell shit and fish.


@kravietz @pro Well, I didn't mean that it's like a holiday, but more like take a few years, maybe a decade and no one will notice that the flood was there in first sight.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_vo (sorry for the german here again, but the english version doesn't list a lot of european incidents)

Looking those incidents, non of these ended with "and the area became impossible to settle again". Basically all were solved in a no time. Sometimes villages have moved, but that's pretty much it.

@sheogorath @pro

This is precisely engineers do comparisons such as this one to objectively compare mortality of various energy sources against a normalised units.

@kravietz @pro What they don't calculate: Area destroyed by incidents, which is the major problem I'm pointing out.

The problem with nuclear power are not direct death numbers, but the long term environmental impact. From deformities, to reduced life expectations to no longer usable land areas. I'm not sure which study you are quoting, but I don't expect them to calculate those impacts in there.

@sheogorath @pro

This is all covered by medical research after nuclear accidents. In case of Fukushima there was 1 fatality, in case of Chernobyl - 200 (over 20 years). All that included cancer, early death, birth defects etc.

In many cases suspicious diseases are blamed on nuclear without conclusive evidence, as it was with a spike of leukemia near Sellafield nuclear processing plant in UK back in 80's. Media were quick to jump to conclusion that the plant is KILLING OUR CHILDREN!!! etc


There was no evidence for that - and there were similar spikes of leukemia in other parts of UK, very far from any nuclear facilities. But when people are biased and they *want* to blame something/someone, they don't care about evidence.

Only in 2000's new research found cause to be regular bacterial infections. These places like Sellafield were always quite isolated and people living there had low immunity against more exotic pathogens.


@kravietz @pro The WHO talks about slightly different number around a few thousand that are impacted in form of cancer but with no clear diagnose whenever this is caused directly due to radiation of due to bad lifestyle. (That's the ugly thing about radiation)

And a lot of cancer cases were solvable by surgery but people have to take meds for their entire life. The mortality itself is not really the full picture of the problem with nuclear power, as I mentioned before.



And is it a full picture with coal? This is why it's important to compare objectively rather than single out one industry.


@kravietz @pro Keep in mind, I'm not advocating for more coal. I'm talking about reducing coal as well. Renewable energy is what I'm advocating for.

When it comes to coal, we also have the whole mining process, which has a huge and negative impact on the environment. But even there I consider the impact of those things lower than the impact of a nuclear power plant incident in Germany. Be it due to natural disaster or human error.

What we need to do is getting this Bureaucracy sorted out.

@kravietz @pro Anyway, it was definitely an interesting discussion we had. I really enjoyed it. Even when it just made me even less certain about the world wide usage of nuclear power. The MIT even suggests that there are 4 major incidents in the timespan from 2004 to 2053 (and at least 1 with Fukushima was there).

It's a weird piece of technology. As someone who hates gambling, not really my world. Still hope we can all figure this energy/environment problem out together quite soon :)

@sheogorath @kravietz The real issue is that solar is junk from EROEI standpoint, while wind is a plain hoax (no matter what lies the German media posts about it). Wind cannot even produce enough energy to re-create itself twice, and solar can do 5 at the most. So neither of them can support a civilization that has computers and dentistry. In short, there is no alternative to nuclear, even if we had to store nuclear waste -- which you now know only needs to happen for a small fraction of the used fuel. Even if we had a Chernobyl every 10 years, there's NO ALTERNATIVE. What's so damned hard to understand about it?

People are too used to magical thinking about the forces of market and science and they expect improvements in solar to narrow the gap to oil's EROEI of 30 (as I mentioned, wind is a hoax and we don't even need to consider it). I'm just going to tell you right here that it cannot happen.

Remember that making solar practical for supplying the grid by buffering it with energy storage actually tanks its EROEI.


Can you provide references for wind & solar power consumption at - I guess - manufacturing phase and EROEI? Obviously, in discussions about German energy policy these are rarely raised...


@kravietz @pro at least this study doesn't seem to support the indicated statement: festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weis

And similar studies I got through a quick scan using google scholar, don't suggest anything else either. There is a positive EOREI in wind energy, it's just not as big as other renewable energy sources and way below fossil fuels. But that's no surprise.

@sheogorath @pro

Looking at real world examples: Rampion off-shore wind farm in UK has 116 towers that occupy 70 km2 (!) and has nominal output of 700MW. In case of off-shore wind, that can be utilised up to 40% due to intermittency.

Nearby Dungeness nuclear power plant has just one block of 600MW that can be utilised up to 95% and occupies maybe 1 km2.

This, in my opinion, is a huge difference...

@kravietz @pro well, the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl is 2,600 km2. So given that an accident happens, which due to statistics as already mentioned we have to expect, that's quite some space for wind power.

I mean, I have an IT background and look a lot into backups. And looking at that tells me: By default calculate the worst case scenario. And as mentioned, it's not unrealistic that an incidents appears.


You're comparing apples and oranges.

Germany is *already* hitting its limits of land available for wind farms, and to move further with renewables it would need to occupy further thousands of km2.

And if you are indeed considering "the worst scenario" indeed, then you need to also look into possibility of mass gas explosion at power-to-gas and hydrogen processing installations that can destroy whole cities, hydro dam collapses and house fires caused by roof solars.


Show newer
Show newer
Show newer


And obviously nobody is looking into *these* "worst case scenarios" because Greens simply *want* nuclear out and *anything* else in. But this is not how engineering works, which is precisely why it's "nuclear out, fossil gas in".


This is comparing apples with bananas. The wind farm does not occupy every square-meter of this area, while a nuclear plant does almost.
@sheogorath @pro


But the point is you can't put *more* wind turbines there. You built 400MW nominal power and occupied 70 km². For 4GW you need 700 km² etc, for 40GW - 7000 km² etc. And you will only get 30-40% of that on average.

This is why DESERTEC planned to build solar panels in Sahara which was good idea in theory... but it failed.

@sheogorath @pro

@sheogorath @pro

Again, nothing comes for free. Wind and solar manufacturing requires rare earth metals, which are... mined.

And as they are mined, they release waste that is... radioactive due to natural radium and thorium content.

And this *too* has environmental impact en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain

But again, nobody wants to hear about it because "solar and wind are so clean".

Now, as it comes to coal - nobody wants it alone. But everyone wants stable power supply...


So when the villages became visited by many people from outside - because of the plants construction - they started to get these infections. They were not serious, but in small percentage of children they triggered leukemia.

Obviously, it has nothing to do with radiation and it happened in other places with new tourist centers etc. But once again, if you want to blame something, you don't care about evidence.



And this is precisely why people prefer coal plants that kill them slowly over nuclear plants that don't kill anybody, but are "scary".

By the way, coal ash is also radioactive and contaminates ground. All coal plants in Germany alone produce around 8 million m3 of coal waste every month, so over 100 millions of tons per years. And the ash is just stored on heaps, contaminating land and water.

All nuclear plants in all EU produced 6 million m3 of waste ever. But who cares?


@sheogorath @pro

> are still recommended to not collect mushrooms in the forest, due to this nonsense

Yes, this recommendation is indeed a nonsense.

@sheogorath @pro

I don't read German freely, but I can read graphs fortunately :) So these radiation levels from Chernobyl fallout - at 0.6 mSv per year - are absoutely negligible. Average exposure from natural sources (sun, space radiation, ground etc) is 3 mSv.

To give you a comparison against some real world values: a cigarette smoker gets 160 mSv per year from tobacco alone.


There are ~450 civilian nuclear reactors working all around the world as we speak.

Over the last 50 years there were *two* serious nuclear accidents among these 450 reactors.

One in a 70's military 1st gen RBMK reactor in USSR that was put into melt-down by violating all safety procedures.

Another one in 70's 2nd gen reactor in Japan built in a active seismic zone.

So yes, these two were statistically expected.


@sheogorath @pro

The situation in Germany however is not politics really, although it was *caused* by politics.

Politics told grid operators: you must provide stable power supply, and reduce CO2, and no more nuclear.

Grid operators replied: you can only choose two. This is how you ended up with stable power supply based on coal and gas, no nuclear and no CO2 reductions.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Sheogorath's Microblog

This is my personal microblog. It's filled with my fun, joy and silliness.