• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • Even accounting for disasters, coal power puts more radionuclides into the environment into the environment than nuclear for the same amount of energy. If you dig lots of stuff up and spew it all into the air, the small amount of radioactive material that’s in coal and the rocks around it is much bigger than the tiny amounts of nuclear fuel a nuclear power plant gets through. If the only concern is radiation that persists on geological timescales, then swapping all coal for nuclear is an improvement. Other things that release surprising amounts of radiation include making things out of granite (it’s usually got uranium in) and importing bananas and Brazil nuts.

    If it’s changes on a geological timescale in general, then as fossil fuels form on a geological timescale (the clue’s in the name), digging them up is going to take unfathomable amounts of time to undo. It won’t even be as quick as the first time around, as most coal formed before ligninase evolved, so trees fell over and didn’t rot and usually became coal, buy they’re biodegradable now so need specific fossilisation-friendly conditions to become coal.


  • That problem isn’t unique to nuclear. It wouldn’t be newsworthy if a worn-out wind turbine blade was incinerated unsafely, and that’s something that happens routinely and is much more damaging than dumping this quantity (about a beer crate full) of depleted uranium. The reason we’re hearing about this incident is that the nuclear industry is held to a much higher standard than anything else in the energy sector. There are good reasons for that - the worst case scenario for a single fuckup is much worse - but a lot of it is just fear-mongering by fossil fuel companies who needed to lie to make something seem more dangerous than what they do, even before climate change was recognised.

    Nuclear is so much better than fossil fuels that even if we cut every corner and accepted a Chernobyl-scale indicent would happen a couple of times a year, it’d still be preferable over the gradual phase out of fossil fuels and resulting climate crisis we’re on track for.


  • Solar’s a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it.

    A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there’s much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there’s an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times.