Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zajd 3768 days ago
How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?
1 comments
dredmorbius 3768 days ago
False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures).

More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.

link
zajd 3768 days ago
Actually, it is

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...

link
dredmorbius 3767 days ago
That's not accessible.

As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima.

Actually, I've previously discussed both here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are...

NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past.

The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/

Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).

link
wbc 3767 days ago
the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses
link
dredmorbius 3767 days ago
Starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf

And p. 745: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf

link
dredmorbius 3767 days ago
One of the appendices is risks of differrent generating methods. Should show up in the table of contents.

And yeah, I know it's long....

link