[cogman10]

> Lead to basically zero direct deaths

Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done by a power generation mechanism.

> Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan

Yeah, crazy stuff happens and radioactive spills have longterm effects on the environment that are hard to address.

> ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake

That's a non-sequitur.

> Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good use of money

Japan has spent the equivalent of $180B cleaning up the mess Fukoshima left behind. [1] Decomissioning the old reactors and replacing them with the safer to avoid unexpected disasters which cost hundreds of billions does seem like a good use of money. Far better than just hoping something unexpected doesn't happen.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248

[leonidasrup]

It's always hard count indirect deaths.

We could for example argue that Japan, by stopping it's nuclear power plants for long time and replacing it's cheap nuclear electricity with expensive imported gas electricity caused more deaths than by direct radiological impact of Fukoshima accident.

"Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident"

https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf

"In an effort to meet the energy demands, nuclear power was replaced by imported fossil fuels, which led to increases in electricity prices. The price increases led to a reduction in electricity consumption but only during the coldest times of the year. Given its protective effects from extreme weather, the reduced electricity consumption led to an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increased mortality resulting from the higher energy prices outnumbered the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting that applying the precautionary principle caused more harm than good."

In term of money, you have look at the sums that Japan has been pouring into importing gas, which was needed to replace the missing nuclear power generation.

"With the Japanese government’s blessing, these companies are encouraging other countries to use more gas and LNG by investing US$93 billion from March 2013 to March 2024 in midstream and downstream oil and gas infrastructure globally."

https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima...

[cogman10]

I pretty much fully agree.

I'm not actually arguing that Gen II plants need to be decommissioned immediately. I'm arguing that they need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible.

The process that takes can look like running the Gen II reactor while a replacement Gen IV reactor is being built and then decommissioning after the IV reactor is up and running.

I'm not against using nuclear, far from it. But I do think we need to actually have a plan about how we evolve the current nuclear fleet.

[thrownthatway]

> Gen II … need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible.

Why? The overwhelming majority of Gen II reactors aren’t on the east coast of Japan.

And the lessons learned from Fukushima Daiitchi can be applied elsewhere to mitigate similar risks.

My opinion is it’s more prudent to run the existing fleet for its economically useful life, remembering that reliable base load can have more value than intermittent wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries.

You also don’t get process heat not district heating from wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries.

[cogman10]

Gen II reactors everywhere are subject to war and sabotage. Places that are currently safe aren't always safe.

Fukushima was a demonstration that these reactors can still melt down. It doesn't take exactly fukushima to cause a meltdown.

The reason to prioritize decommissioning is because the new generations of reactors are completely safe. There can be no meltdown, even if they are explicitly sabotaged. Then the bigger risk becomes not the reactor but the management of waste.

What Gen II reactors are is effectively a landmine in a box. The proposed solution to avoid detonating the landmine is adding more pillows, buffers, and padding, but still keeping the landmine because it'd be expensive to replace.

I think that's just a bad idea. Unexpected things happen. They don't have to (and probably won't) look exactly like a Tsunami hitting the facility. So why not replace the box with a landmine with one that doesn't have the landmine. Yes it cost money to do, but it's simply safer and completely eliminates a whole class of risks.

[leonidasrup]

There are many kinds of Gen IV reactors. Which of the Gen IV reactors would you prefer? Which Gen IV reactor can not melt down, even if explicitly sabotaged?

[cogman10]

> Which of the Gen IV reactors would you prefer?

TBH, probably the SCWR. They seem like the easiest to build without a lot of new surprises.

> Which Gen IV reactor can not melt down, even if explicitly sabotaged?

One like the BREST. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) . Funnily my preferred reactor, the SCWR, would probably not be immune to some sabotage, specifically explosives around the reactor. But a reactor which uses a metal coolant would be. It just so happens that the nature of a SCWR cooled with water means that the reactor core has to be much beefier anyways, so it's a lot harder to really damage even if that was an explicit goal.

[thrownthatway]

> Gen II reactors everywhere are subject to war and sabotage.

<eye roll> this is just bullshit.

Which Gen II reactors are subject to war, exactly?

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, where one employ was killed by a drone strike?

What’s the status of the four new planned(?) reactors at Khmelnitski?

Wikipedia seems to indicate that two new AP1000 reactors are under construction.

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

A country that is having a hot war with its neighbour Russia(!) is getting the fuck on with it, while the rest of the Western world still thinks windmills are cool.

[cogman10]

> Which Gen II reactors are subject to war, exactly?

Potentially any of them. World governments aren't static. Mitt Romney was literally laughed at for talking about the Russian military threat in 2012.

> two new AP1000

These are Gen III+ reactors, which thoughout this thread I've been saying we should be building to replace the Gen II reactors.

If Ukraine was building new Gen II reactors you might have a point.

[pqtyw]

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done

By that definition housefires also lead to very few direct deaths if most people die due to smoke inhalation instead of burning alive.

Unlike with nuclear that, even if we entirely ignore CO2 emissions and climate change the remaining "indirect" damage due to pollution and long-term effects on the environment are largely know and quantifiable and are astronomically higher per MHw produced compared to nuclear power.

[thrownthatway]

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death,

There have been plenty of direct deaths caused by coal power. Coal dust can be quite explosive and has caused a lot of deaths over the years. And plenty of coal fired boilers, both stationary and mobile (locomotives) and failed causing plenty of deaths.

[peterfirefly]

It's instructive (and scary) to google pictures of exploded boilers!

[philipallstar]

> > ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake

> That's a non-sequitur.

I think this is to establish that the large number of deaths from the disaster weren't due to the nuclear plant, which people seem to assume.

[cogman10]

People assume it, I did not. Nor did I claim it. It is a non-sequitur because we aren't talking about deaths from natural disasters.

[thrownthatway]

We actually are.

There are plenty of smaller nuclear power reactor issues listen on Wikipedia, but the three big ones are Chernobyl, but that was an RMBK, which no one built except those crazy Russians, TMI which didn’t kill or injury anyone, and Fukushima Daiitchi which resulted in one death.

So we’re not really talking about deaths from nuclear power reactors, because there aren’t any, discounting Chernobyl because that won’t ever happen again.

So we must be talking about the deaths from that one natural disaster associated with the Fukushima Daiitchi meltdowns. Otherwise, I dint know what deaths you’re talking about.

More people injur themselves falling off ladders while trying to clean their solar panels than nuclear power ever will.

[cogman10]

You are, I'm not.

Good luck.

[thrownthatway]

Ok, which deaths from nuclear power.

State your case, enumerate them.

The idea that nuclear isn’t safe, and can’t be competitive in thr market is just nonsense.

Seventeen AP1000s are currently in operation or under construction. Four are in operation at two sites in China, two at Sanmen Nuclear Power Station and two at Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant. As of 2019, all four Chinese reactors were completed and connected to the grid, and as of 2026, eleven more are under construction.

It goes on…

Two are in operation at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Augusta, Georgia, in the United States, with Vogtle 3 having come online in July 2023, and Vogtle 4 in April 2024. Construction at Vogtle suffered numerous delays and cost overruns. Construction of two additional reactors at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station near Columbia, South Carolina, led to Westinghouse's bankruptcy in 2017 and the cancellation of construction at that site. It was reported in January 2025 by The Wall Street Journal and The State that Santee Cooper, the sole owner of the stored parts and unfinished construction, is exploring construction and financing partners to finish construction these two reactors. The need for large amounts of electricity for data centers is said to be the driving factor for their renewed interest.

Twenty-four more AP1000s are currently being planned, with six in India, nine in Ukraine, three in Poland, two in Bulgaria, and four in the United States.

China is currently developing more advanced versions and owns their patent rights. The first AP1000 began operations in China at Sanmen, where Unit 1 became the first AP1000 to achieve criticality in June 2018, and was connected to the grid the next month. Further builds in China will be based on the modified CAP1000 and CAP1400 designs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

The fact is, nuclear power is a 21st century success story.

[cogman10]

> State your case, enumerate them.

My case is that Gen II reactors have a design flaw which gives them a risk that should be eliminated. We should replace Gen II reactors with Gen III or later reactors as none of them suffer from the same problems as Gen II reactors do.

The rest of your post is about AP1000, which is a Gen III+ reactor. A fine reactor to replace Gen II reactors with.

I've made this point, to you, a couple of times so now I feel like you aren't actually reading my responses.

I'm not interested in one sided conversations.

[mpweiher]

Yes we actually are talking about deaths from natural disasters.

The Fukushima nuclear power plant was destroyed by the Tsunami. It didn't spontaneously combust.

A lot of other infrastructure that was impacted/destroyed by the Tsunami claimed lives. For example, a dam broke due to the Tsunami and that dam breach killed 4 people. Which coincidentally happens to be 4 more than were killed by the nuclear power plant when it was destroyed by the Tsunami.

[cogman10]

IDK why you'd think a thread about how we treat and handle nuclear reactors in an article about decommissioning nuclear reactors should suddenly be about people that die from natural disasters.

More people die from car accidents and heart attacks. More people get radiation poisoning from sun exposure. Also non-sequiturs because we are not talking about that here.

It is very tangentially related because the nuclear accident in the current thread was caused by an earthquake that also killed people. Not something that affects the discussion about how we should handle nuclear plants in the future because "This number is bigger" is a meaninglessly point to make.

[mpweiher]

> a thread about how we treat and handle nuclear reactors

This is actually an article about Belgium taking over nuclear plants for restart.

> should suddenly be about people that die from natural disasters

How did we get to natural disasters?

Well:

You brought up Fukushima, where a natural disaster destroyed a nuclear power station. You also incorrectly claimed that Japan had "decided" to "decomission" "these" reactors, rather than "rebuild" them.

Right, and ultimately Japan has decided the safest and I assume cheapest route with these reactors wasn't to rebuild but rather to decommission. These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing.

I think most people who read this interpreted this as "these" meaning "Japan's reactor fleet". Because that's the only interpretation that makes at least a little sense (though it is wrong).

It certainly can't mean the reactors at Fukushima, because those have been destroyed, there never was any question of "rebuilding" them and so no "decision" not to do that. And not due to some unfixable "design flaw", but due to a Tsunami that another plant of the same design withstood without damage.

So: we got to natural disasters because you brought up natural disasters.

And yes, technical equipment and infrastructure gets destroyed in natural disasters. Like that dam in Japan that killed 4 people when it was destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and Tsunami. Like that nuclear power plant that killed 0 people when it was destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and Tsunami.

[thrownthatway]

> More people get radiation poisoning from sun exposure.

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On. About.

That has never happened.

Radiation poisoning. From sun exposure.

Are you ok? Would like some water? Do you want to sit down?

If you think that’s a thing, I don’t know what to say. I hope you don’t vote.

You should stop now before you embarrass yourself. Go away and do some reading. Come back when you’re read to play with the big kids.

We’re doomed!

[cogman10]

UV light is radiation from the sun. Sun burns are, in fact, a form of radiation poisoning.

I'm sorry this isn't something you knew.

Also, be aware you are violating HN posting guidelines. I'm not going to interact with you further because you are just flaming.

[philipallstar]

Okay, but this isn't a one-on-one conversation. It's a public, multi-way message board involving people who will assume that.

[tshaddox]

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths.

Huh? Are you not counting coal mining, which historically caused thousands of deaths per year and presumably still causes at least hundreds per year (not sure what info we have on that from China).

[StreamBright]

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death

This is not true at all.

Direct Occupational Deaths (Mining & Accidents)

Even in a highly regulated environment like the United States, coal mining is not a zero-fatality industry. United States: According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), there were 8 coal mining deaths in 2025 and 10 in 2024. This is a massive improvement from 1907 (the deadliest year), which saw 3,242 deaths.

In countries with less stringent safety oversight, the numbers are much higher. For example, China's coal industry—though improving—has historically recorded hundreds to thousands of deaths annually.

In 2022 alone, hundreds of people died in global coal mine accidents.

Chronic Disease: "Black Lung" (pneumoconiosis) is still a leading cause of death for miners. In the U.S. alone, thousands of former miners die every decade from lung diseases directly caused by inhaling coal dust.