Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's because the U.S. is so hesitant to do nuclear that its inhabitants are so pro-nuclear. The U.S. isn't having to deal with nuclear's faults.



I'm pro-nuclear because it's one of the lowest risk forms of electricity production in terms of human lives per kilowatt, with the possible exception of utility scale solar.

The occasional wind turbine workers and rooftop solar installers have been killed doing their work; in extremely small numbers but each turbine and rooftop only makes a minuscule quantity of energy.

Hydro is usually very safe, except that the dams can fail and wipe out entire cities. When Banqiao Dam failed, 26 thousand people died. If you want to talk about the "what if" dangers of nuclear, you have to accept that Hydro's "what if" scenarios are far, far, far more deadly.

  Deaths per trillion kW hours

  170,000  Coal
   36,000  Oil
   24,000  Biomass
    4,000  Gas
    1,400  Hydro
      440  Solar (rooftop)
      150  Wind
       90  Nuclear
Source: http://onforb.es/1JpfxzR


That link seems to be unrelated, you probably put the wrong one.

I notice that Wind and Solar aren't much worse than Nuclear, though, and they don't produce highly radioactive, toxic waste we must safely store for millenia, don't take decades to set up, don't cost as much, do not require incredibly high levels of competence to be safe...


There are plenty of sources with broadly similar numbers. Google is your friend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=deaths+per+kilowatt

I'm all on board for wind and solar, we should be deploying as much of it as possible. But if we want to eliminate fossil fuels from the world economy in the next 50 years, we need more than just solar and wind.

Saying that nuclear power produces "highly radioactive, toxic waste" is extremely misleading and demonstrates a core misunderstanding of the nuclear fuel cycle. This stuff is only scary because it has been pitched as the boogie monster by anti-nuclear weapons campaigners who were completely uneducated about the difference between the two.

If you educate yourself about nuclear power, your views might change.

http://archive.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/mo...


This statistic does not account future deaths.

If we were to stop using hydro or wind the number of related deaths would quickly drop. With a lifetime of 100.000 years, today's nuclear waste has a potential to kill tenths millions.


Your claim of future deaths has no rational basis.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the nuclear fuel cycle, and some very basic facts about radioactive material. The stuff that "kills" has a short half-life. The stuff that lasts for millennia is almost safe enough to store in your underpants.

Rather than parrot ignorant statements of others, please consider learning more about nuclear energy.


> The stuff that "kills" has a short half-life. The stuff that lasts for millennia is almost safe enough to store in your underpants.

That it is dangerous for millennia seems to be a popular belief, so a source would be valuable.


> a source would be valuable.

Seems a bit strange having to cite something I learned in secondary school science class, but okay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_b...


People hear "nuclear waste" and "lasts for millennia" and they insert the implicit "is dangerous" themselves.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: