[AngryParsley]

Don't forget that the Tohoku earthquake killed almost 20,000 people. The worst estimates for Fukushima predict it will cause 1,000 deaths. Median estimates predict a couple hundred deaths.

Even though management was criminally bad, Fukushima still killed fewer people than the equivalent number of coal plants run for the same time. Fukushima ran for 40 years, so that's 25 deaths per year worst-case. According to the CATF[1], around 13,000 Americans die each year from fossil fuel power plant emissions. There are around 600 coal plants in the US, so that's just over 20 deaths per plant per year. What's worse is you need more than one coal plant to make up for a nuclear plant. Googling around tells me coal averages 300MW/plant and Fukushima had 4.7GW of capacity. You'd need 15 coal plants to make up for Fukushima. That's 300 deaths per year.

So when the 5th largest earthquake ever recorded strikes, and causes a nuclear power plant to explode twice, and the cleanup is criminally mismanaged, it's still safer than burning fossil fuels.

1. http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/existing/

[danielharan]

There are more than 600 power plants in the US that use fossil fuels, the 600 is just for coal.

As for the severity of the earthquake, it's far more important to consider proximity than absolute magnitude. A smaller one closer or right under could have been catastrophic. A few of us consider building plants in active tectonic zones to be the height of insanity. Building it right by the shore, in historical tsunami zones? Incomprehensibly stupid.

Of course, the alternative to nuclear isn't just coal. Renewables and efficiency should be considered first. Safer than both coal and nuclear, they also create more jobs.

[AngryParsley]

Sorry, but you're wrong about the safety of renewables. The statistic you're looking for is called deaths per terawatt-hour. Nuclear wins by an order of magnitude: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawat...

For the same amount of energy, renewables kill more people than nuclear. People fall off their roofs installing solar panels. Hydroelectric dams burst. Even windmills kill people.

For the next few decades, fossil fuels are the only alternative to nuclear power. Wind and solar aren't baseload sources. Hydro is, but we've already put dams in most of the economically and environmentally feasible locations.

[lispm]

Here in Germany we are now at 25% renewable energy for electricity. Without much hydro. Expect to see something close to 40% in 2020.

There are lots of environmental impacts of renewable energy, but generally the acceptance is higher than for nuclear or coal.

[AngryParsley]

Yes, 25% of electricity produced in Germany comes from renewables. But Germany imports 2/3rds of its energy, so less than 10% of domestic consumption is from renewables.

Here's a tangentially-related fact: France is the world's largest energy exporter. 75% of their production comes from nuclear. Germany is still dependent on nuclear power, they just passed the buck.

[lispm]

Germany has an export surplus (!) of 10TWh electricity in the first half of 2012. We are among the world's largest exporters of electricity.

[robk]

At an extraordinarily high cost to the taxpayer. Well above what any rational body would have/should have paid for getting to this level.

[danielharan]

So someone proves an argument unsound, and you just say they're crazy? Nice.

[lispm]

The taxpayer is paying nothing.

[danielharan]

Yes, an order of magnitude if you only count rooftop solar. NOT if you count wind. Maybe for efficiency, people replacing lightbulbs and motors are at risk of death.

Yet for both wind and solar, this reflects all known risk, while for nuclear we still have to deal with catastrophic risks as well as storage of spent fuel.

As to the only alternative to nuclear being fossil fuels, someone should tell it to countries investing in solar power (especially concentrated) or wind. Germany and China come to mind.

[spartango]

While I generally agree with your assessment, I'll make the small point that the radioactive-isotope contamination of the areas surrounding Fukushima will have subtler human and environmental effects over the course of the next 50+ years. Sure, these won't result in death, and perhaps not even serious illness, but they are effects that last long after everything is repaired.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Do I really have to point at the logical fallacy you're using here? You're basically saying nuclear power doesn't suck because coal sucks.

Let me tell you about how many people die each year from the hydroelectrics that power 90% of my country.

[InclinedPlane]

If an earthquake causes a bridge to collapse, killing people, do we blame the bridge or the earthquake? If an earthquake causes a dam to fail (which happened due to the Tohoku quake), killing people, do we blame the dam or the earthquake? If an earthquake causes a tall building to topple, should we build shorter buildings?

The Fukushima reactors were the most dangerous design currently still in operation in G-7 countries, and handling of the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami was one of the most disorganized and most mismanaged in history. And yet for all of that the nuclear disaster still resulted in far fewer deaths than occurred in coal mining in that year.

[bluedanieru]

Just to be clear, the handling of the Fukushima incident has been an absolute shit-show. The handling of the earthquake and the tsunami, in a broader sense, has been excellent.

[wapper]

Which didn't prevent the other power plants in Japan from killing more people than the nuclear disaster will kill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYT6BjfBro (1m15s in)

(death toll from that fire, explosions around it and people locking themselves in their homes, then getting enveloped by the smoke, was over 200. It was not the only oil disaster during the earthquake)