[saulrh]

OK, then, let's go tease out every iota of causality we possibly can from the statistics for various energy technologies. Let's start at the top. Hmm. "Global climate change resulting primarily from fossil fuel use has already caused tens of millions of deaths via famine, flooding, and extreme weather and stands a reasonable chance of killing every single human on earth over the course of the next hundred years". Well, that's not going to work.

[Synaesthesia]

Burning Coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere than all human nuclear activity. The particulates are the major killer though. I believe like 100 000 people die from the effects every year. And that's discounting the atrocious toll on the environment.

[13years]

This is true compared to normal nuclear facilities operating normally. However, it is not a comparison to nuclear activity as due to nuclear accidents. http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

[saulrh]

And what he said above is also true of fossil fuel industry facilities operating normally. He doesn't consider pollution due to spills, oil well fires, or refinery explosions. If wells or refineries failed at the rate you're implying nuclear plants do, our entire planet would be an inch deep in crude. And, yes, I understand that there physically isn't enough oil on earth to do that. That's part of my point. The alternatives to nuclear are strictly worse. There are no tradeoffs. They are just worse in every way, whether they're operating as designed or not.

[13years]

My point is about the disregard of the significance of the Fukishima accident. You must include that in the analysis.

This was written in 2011, and Fukishima has been continuously releasing radiation ever since.

"...every 600 years worldwide coal combustion releases as much radiation as was released from the nuclear accident at Fukushima..." http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.com/2011/12/coal-1-fukushim...

I'm not arguing in favor of any energy source that damages the environment; nonetheless, I would prefer we acknowledge risks where they exist. To not do so, would be to send us down the path of possibly less safe nuclear facilities.

[tptacek]

I feel like you're not getting his point. The coal industry in its steady state reliably kills more people every year than every nuclear accident put together, even when you include imputed civilian cancer fatalities from Chernobyl.

I think you are going to have a difficult time coming up with an evidence-based argument that (a) supplies electricity to everyone in the world currently depending on it, (b) doesn't use nuclear, and (c) kills fewer people as a result of (b). I am ready to be surprised, though.

[dredmorbius]

Coal and petroleum are responsible for raising the population of earth from the 800 millon or so in 1800 to over 7.3 billion alive today. Nuclear alone wouldn't be capable of that.

Nuclear at the scale of present fossil fuel energy provision would be on the order of 15,000 plants, simultaneously, with a lifetime of about 40 years. There are fewer than 400 nuclear power plants operating today. We'd be looking at commissioning nearly as many per year (15,00 plants, 40 year life, 1.03 per day, or 375 per year).

Each of which would be creating at least some long-term waste.

There's the prospect of advanced reactor designs, with thorium being the darling of some, despite little actual experience and significant technical challenges (glowing hot highly corrosive radioactive salts, one test reactor run briefly 50 years ago for which cleanup is still not complete).

For uranium or plutonium fuel cycles, there's a very real concern over total fuel availability.

And even with nuclear you don't have liquid fuels without a heck of a lot of trouble. Some form of synfuel seems too be the best bet, with hydrogen from electrolysis combined with carbon from... Well, that's tough, limestone would still be carbon-positive, carbon recovery from the atmosphere or seawater is posssible but one heck of a challenge at scale. Ships and planes have few options other than hydrocarbons, and a lot of ground uses favour it.

Solar, wind, hydro, and some form of storage pencil out for raw scale, though my general sense between energy and other resource constraints is that a high-energy, abundant future on Earth will require a vastly smaller population. Likely achieved relatively quickly.

Or you could go the low-energy, non-abundant lifestyle. Which would likely see a similar population reduction.

Bit of a Hobson's choice there, in terms of misery.

Which do you choose?

[13years]

No, I do get it. I will restate my point again. "My point is about the disregard of the significance of the Fukishima accident".

Why is that important. Because nuclear is not a panacea of risk free energy. The public should demand technology and safety to be continually improved and outdated reactors to be revamped or decommissioned.

If Chernobyl possibly killed 100k, then Fukishima will likely in the end kill far more. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/che...

This is not a plea to abandon nuclear, it is that in order to prevent future disasters there has to be an honest assessment of potential risk impact so that there is incentive to make better designs.

Otherwise, all of these counter arguments could be interpreted as saying "Coal kills 1 million, so what if nuclear only kills 100k every once and a while".

[pdonis]

> it is not a comparison to nuclear activity as due to nuclear accidents.

But nuclear accidents are rare, and are not a necessary consequence of nuclear power. Coal ash is not rare, and it is a necessary consequence of burning coal.

[pdonis]

> "Global climate change resulting primarily from fossil fuel use has already caused tens of millions of deaths via famine, flooding, and extreme weather and stands a reasonable chance of killing every single human on earth over the course of the next hundred years"

You said statistics, not unproven speculation. (Which is not to say that there aren't statistics showing harms from fossil fuel use. Just that you should focus on actual data.)

[saulrh]

I agree. I'm just pointing out that, since we're talking about unproven speculation, any statement that fits "Chernobyl killed >3e4 people" is also not statistics.

[13years]

Global climate change doesn't have a definable and agreeable source and/or event that can be confined to definite set of parameters. The cause and effect chain is nebulous in comparison.

But damage caused by radiation is well known, definable criteria which is well studied as part of health studies. What would be more comparable would be studies of heart disease for example based on consumption of certain foods. We readily accept such studies as advice on what is health, what is not, and also what drugs work and which do not. The principle is the same.

[mikeash]

Even if you ignore climate change (which is, frankly, irresponsible at this point), coal pollution alone kills something like a million people per year worldwide.